Israeli Public Relations Group Leads Lynch Mob Against Black Professor

Oberlin College’s Joy Karega Pokes 800 Pound Zionist Gorilla

karegaBy James F. Tracy

A professor at an elite liberal arts college in Ohio has been targeted as “anti-semitic” and labelled a “conspiracy theorist” for observing in social media posts that Israel was behind 9/11, the November 2015 Paris terror events, and the rise of the Islamic State. Jewish groups and major media outlets have joined forces to publicly assail Joy Karega, an assistant professor of composition, and her employer Obelin College, for voicing “kooky theories,” FoxNews reports. Yet Oberlin administrators have not capitulated to the mob-like calls for Korega’s de facto lynching. The entire controversy can be traced back to a single source.

Prof. Karega’s “hate speech”: “And I stopped letting folks bully me with that ‘you’re being anti-semitic’ nonsense a long time ago. Just a strategy to shut folks up …”

However unorthodox or politically incorrect Professor Karega’s perspectives may appear, there’s abundant evidence to substantiate the veracity of her observations (e.g. here, herehere, here, here, here, here, here, and here). And one need only look to cases such as Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty or the 1992 and 1994 “attacks” in Argentina to recognize the nation state’s long history of supporting false flag terror. Or simply consider for a moment the powerful Israel intelligence agency Mossad’s guiding philosophy: “By way of deception.”

The media frenzy was sparked in late February when The Tower, an organ run by pro-Zionist public relations group The Israeli Project (“TIP”) published an inflammatory article highlighting Karega’s extracurricular commentary.

Screen Shot 2016-03-05 at 10.22.50 AM


When Oberlin refused to chastise or terminate Karega TIP’s The Tower published a followup article, essentially setting the agenda for other Israeli publications and the pro-Zionist corporate media to pile on. (Note that The Tower refers to the “controversy” it was responsible for generating around Karega and her university.)


Screen Shot 2016-03-03 at 12.00.58 AM


Screen Shot 2016-03-03 at 12.03.11 AM

Screen Shot 2016-03-03 at 12.01.48 AM

Screen Shot 2016-03-02 at 11.23.51 PM

Screen Shot 2016-03-02 at 11.24.26 PM

Because of this starkly provoked “controversy” (see my “An Open Letter to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel“) Karega and her academic home are being intimidated by the most powerful and efficient propaganda system in the West.

“This is the worst kind of anti-Semitic rhetoric,” said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, director of the Shurat HaDin—Israel Law Center, an Israeli-based civil rights organization. “It is not acceptable for the dean to hide behind academic freedom and claim this is freedom of speech. “She (Karega) is not a tenured professor,” she added. “She needs to be thrown off campus immediately.”

Contrary to this contempt for free thought and speech, the First Amendment grants US citizens the right (and for true Americans the duty) to take issue with how their government’s affairs, as well as those its tax dollars support. Salaried intellectuals who have certain protections should be compelled to take on such controversial subject matter, yet very few actually do.

First Amendment experts note how Korega’s views are protected under the rudimentary free speech tenets. “As wacky and weird these comments may be,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley observes, “they were made by an academic outside of their classes and express her political and historical viewpoint … It is in fact free speech and there are academic protections for unpopular speech. The college is right. However, there is a growing concern over the test being applied to academics based on the content of such speech.”

Along these lines, Stanley Fish, the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor of Humanities and Law at Florida International University, explains to Inside Higher Ed that “Karega is free to say whatever she wishes on social media or in her own scholarship, even if it’s untrue and relates directly to her subject area –provided she “doesn’t attempt to present it in class as a fundamental truth (and there’s a sound pedagogical reason for presenting it at all).”

Fish said that the Steven Salaita case at the University of Illinois, for example, should have hinged entirely on Salaita’s teaching record — not uninterrogated fears about what his controversial, anti-Israel tweets might mean about his ability to teach.

“Are you trying to inform your students about the various views or perspectives that are out there or are you trying to enlist your students in some kind of political agenda?” Fish asked. “It’s very simple, and if you keep those other questions out of it, a lot of confusion can be avoided.”

While Oberlin’s administration has stood behind its young faculty member one can safely conclude that the university will experience acute pressure from alumni and donors who have been provoked by the coordinated propaganda campaign. Add to this the activities of paid trolls who are at surely at work showering the young professor and her university with profane and threatening emails and voice messages, as her posts below indicate.



Karega and her colleagues will by now have received plenty of such communications. This is but one component of a psychological campaign to terrorize and isolate the professor from her peers. “Journalists” will similarly telephone and visit her office and residence with “interview” requests, further pressuring her into silence and conformity. Editors of academic journals and book series in her field may blacklist her for fear of being linked to a potential contributor with “anti-semitic” and “conspiracist” views.

In the end Karega will likely function as an example for other academics for uttering that which what must remain “unspeakable,” as author Jim Douglas calls it, a fitting term for the painful truths failing to pierce the comfort of willful ignorance.

These strictures characterize and define the modern state of academe and its often gutless approach to today’s most urgent social and political problems. Intellectuals recognize as a right of passage how they must tiptoe around concrete geopolitical and historical realities, lest they draw the ire of today’s thought police and face the potential consequences: financial deprivation and professional ruin. In this way what was once higher education has become yet another racket for high finance.

261 thoughts on “Israeli Public Relations Group Leads Lynch Mob Against Black Professor”

  1. Memory Hole Blog links are buggered. I get this:

    Oh no! This blog’s domain expired yesterday!

    Unfortunately you cannot access this blog from any more. This domain name expired on Friday, March 4, 2016 and will soon be canceled.

    Help the owners of this website by reminding them to renew this domain or, even better, by renewing it for them as a gift – before it’s too late:

  2. The link take me here:

    [image: Inline image 1]

    *Michael Riesterer*

    On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Memory Hole wrote:

    > MHB Administrator posted: “Israeli Public Relations Group Leads Lynch Mob > Against Black Professor By James F. Tracy A professor at an elite liberal > arts college Ohio has been targeted as “anti-semitic” and labelled a > “conspiracy theorist” for observing in social media posts tha” >

  3. When I press Read more of this post I am taken to this page… Oh no! This blog’s domain expired yesterday! Unfortunately you cannot access this blog from any more. This domain name expired on Friday, March 4, 2016 and will soon be canceled. Help the owners of this website by reminding them to renew this domain or, even better, by renewing it for them as a gift – before it’s too late: Renew now for only $18 Don’t worry, you’ll still be able to view the content of this blog at this web address:   “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.”John 1:5 

  4. This is just the tip of the iceberg in exposing the crimes of militant Zionism a.k.a. militant Judaism against U.S. citizens for their perceived anti-Semitic views.

    Here is another example of criminality in the militant Zionist jihad:

    My research indicates that countless thousands of innocent individuals and countless hundreds of innocent families have been targeted because of their perceived anti-Semitism, or, even suspect distant family relations. These attacks include blacklisting and full-blown gang stalking, sometimes against entire extended families, having such a weak basis in fact, that most are just witch hunts, The author Gloria Naylor explored this in her novel 1996, and, several MSM pieces about her beliefs were borderline slanderous.

    1. Ya gotta love Turley’s wording about “weird and wacky comments”. I’d wager Turley is not from County Cork…..

      1. 99 percent of of mainstream intellectuals accept a standard cannon of truths. These are really “well-intentioned lies” and willful blindness. They are craven, weak and cow-towing to the elites. 9/11 truth, examination of false flags, Holocaust revisionism are beyond the scope of legitimate inquiry. This is no different than a German who questioned the terrorist burning of the Reichstag in the Nazi era. Even the blogosphere is infiltrated and corrupted by controlled opposition. All one can do is keep disseminating the truth. Trust no one, but have faith in the principle that the truth will set you free.

      2. Yea, it’s called “poisoning the well”. Funny how these types impose their world view under the pretense of sharing info. They’re very proficient in the used of Logical Fallacies.

        1. Very often you’ll get a reply to a comment which questions one of the fake terror stories of our time, and the person will in a drive-by sort of way state that you must be a Holocaust denier and someone who thinks the moon landings were faked, as though all of those things naturally go together because at some web sites they do.

          This results of course in deflecting questions about recent events which one might have gone through in real time, were concerned enough to check them out, and discovered they could not have happened as they say they did.

          I cannot go back in time to the Holocaust, but my knowledge that it happened as a widespread murder of a group of people (and other groups too) comes from meeting some of the survivors, including a gypsy man whose language needed a translator and whose arm number tattoos were huge because they had been given to him before he was full-grown. He was not begging me for anything – he was set up sharpening knives in a public square in Budapest, and he laughed when it was interpreted that I said his bicycle-driven sharpener looked like an exercise bike. Then there was my mother-in-law whose panic attacks overcame her sometimes, and who told her story in the Shoah project run by Spielberg. She would not be led to say things which were stereotypical either. But I guess you call her a survivor because they tried to starve her to death and they killed most of her family. They also scarred her psyche for life, and she carried the psychic wounds to her death.

          I cannot walk on the moon and see if they left anything behind.

          But I can look at recent events and tell if someone is blowing smoke. That’s about all the expertise I have, but I know the truth from the false once the evidence has been presented – and the non-evidence, and the back-pedaling stories to account for all the holes, like Swiss cheese, in something like the martial law exercise that was the Marathon bombing. So many script revisions, so much packed into a few days of very bad scenarios.

          But that’s the technique to discrediting someone who expresses doubt. Either write them off as “mad” because they don’t accept the media’s account or call them antisemites, today’s scarlet letter “A”. Lack of evidence for same is no problem when evidence is no problem.

      1. I believe that most accounts of high tech harassment are bogus controlled opposition disinformation. FFCHS is a perfect example of these wild, self-marginalizing claims. Wikipedia also removed MSM and government FOIA data from its group stalking sub-article, and conflated gang stalking with “conspiracy mind control theories and DEW ray guns”.

        I do believe that a minority of these harassment claims of sophisticated, satellite and military grade equipment are true. Naylor is one claim I believe was authentic. It’s good to keep in mind that militant Zionism is on the lookout for “Amalek” among minorities as ferociously as it seeks to eliminate enemies in Machiavellian fashion among the majority population of white Christians. Naylor’s case is interesting because it is a perfect example of an authentic black intellectual, not co-opted by the Jewish establishment orthodoxy in academe, who rose from being the grandchild of poor Southern sharecroppers to an acclaimed novelist and Cornell Professor. This attack on perceived anti-Semitism of the Mittelklasse is characteristic of the ADL, JDL, etc. Jewish extremism is no less forgiving than Nazism.

        Another example of authentic high tech harassment was the late entrepreneur Harlan Girard who was himself politically connected enough to bad mouth Bush and Cheney to the wrong people.

        It is noteworthy that former Missouri state representative Jim Guest communicated with many alleged victims, and examined claims of technological harassment from, inter alia, university professors. Guest’s investigation ended shortly after the FBI paid him a visit to discuss the matter.

        1. PeaceFrog, you’re on a roll with your writing in this thread. I’m enjoying it. So much compelling info to research, too. Thanks.

    2. Thank you for this article-I urge ALL Americans to read this very important work, it clearly shows the terrorist acts of the ADL, infiltrating POLICE agencies across the country!
      This is just the tip of the iceburg-the Zionists are operating their terrorist organizations across our land, while their Zionist schills infiltrarte blogs and discussions to deny, harrass, disinform and generally act as 5th column enemy agents in our society

    1. Try failedmessiah. typepad. com/ failed_messiahcom/about-me.html

      An extremely informative site regarding Judaism (orthodox or otherwise).

      1. That looks like a pretty good article,
        I too question a lot of VT’s past but like all alternative news one must cross reference and vet all reports

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

        2. Is he talmudic? This is interesting,
          its a little out of place for a Jew to make so many Jewish self-serving opinions as Duff often does,
          also, the location of VT is troubling to me, which is as far as I understand is one of the biggest banking centers in the world, which in and of itself raises questions

  5. “I should be able to judge you, but you should not be able to judge me”.
    “I believe in free speech but you should have to pay for your free speech”.
    “You should never talk about anything that is not proven to be the truth”.

  6. Reblogged this on The PPJ Gazette and commented:

    apparently the admin at Oberlin have something those at FAU have been unable to acquire…a spine! And an understanding of the 1st Amendment of free speech.

    1. …and your reply to this Patrick? Is this former Israeli Minister a “loon,” too? Or would you describe her using a pejorative – “self-hating?

      1. A few things. Of course, the complexities of Israeli politics are far beyond the scope of this forum, but I’ll touch on some of it.

        First, she’s a Left-wing Israeli. The worst enemies of Israel in Israel are Left-wing Israelis. Many of their organizations truly share Hamas’ goal of eliminating Israel’s existence, and always side with Israel’s enemies. I don’t know if this lady goes that far, but she definitely runs with that pack.

        Second, there is definitely truth in what she says, but it can be interpreted differently. Israel is hated, and has a very successful world-wide gang-stalking program targeting it for destruction. People who hate Israel think it should just remain silent and accept being destroyed; those kinds of people think any strategy to fight back is simply terrible. Since no one wants to listen, Israel has had to be very creative about how it can FORCE her world to listen.

        As I have argued here many times in recent weeks, I approve of Israel using tactics that sound on the surface different than they really are. Some people I consider friends can’t seem to capture my meaning when I present my case, as when I describe why I think it’s a great thing when Israel fights back by demanding its enemies be silenced–Israel knowing full well it will never happen, because the world hates not only Israel but Jews in general. I approve of the tactic for two reasons, the most important being that it is really about forcing the world to acknowledge the very serious things Israel needs to fight back against–the evidence that they are being gang-stalked; the second reason is that the silencing is certain to not to happen (it would be a true catastrophe if censorship of speech were to result from Israel’s strategy). I suspect that if they tried to raise the issue any other way, no one would pay attention. It’s a brilliant strategy. So the world, forced to pay attention, and resenting it, calls Jews perennial cry-babies. From Israel’s point of view, that’s a small price to pay.

        So the tactics of fighting back she mentions don’t sound so reprehensible when you sympathize with the victim of a bully. Even if the reaction of the surprised bully after being punched in the nose is to call his victim the REAL bully.

        This leads me to this (it will best be understood in the context of my reply to Tyrranynews ( in Free Forum Friday XI, where I describe the history of the “separateness” of the Jews. For various reasons, the world has had a visceral distaste for them, and often the feeling has been reciprocal. Now that they finally have a place where they are not “outsiders,” where they are in control, where no-one can expel them, or make into dhimmies, they are even MORE hated–because God made them to be separate when He created them as a nation, supernaturally. They HAVE been persecuted throughout the last two millennia, driven out of countries, made to live in ghettos, murdered en masse. You can hardly blame them for being paranoid. This woman makes the use of that paranoia as a tactic to defend themselves look like cynicism. She’s no doubt right about that, but so what? Are they supposed to simply give up the will to live as a race, after all these centuries?

        Is there another small ethnicity that has survived for thousands of years, against the odds the Jews have faced? No. Because God has a purpose for them to play. And God gets His way.

  7. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it strikes me that some of this is to do with the philosophy of university, what it is supposed to be. Why would any individual be hired at a given college? What is the purpose they would be expected to advance?

    Certainly, this case cuts close to the bone for James Tracy. Which I suspect makes it a little difficult for him to be an objective analyst. What inspires that thought is this quote in the piece:

    “Fish said that the Steven Salaita case at the University of Illinois, for example, should have hinged entirely on Salaita’s teaching record — not uninterrogated fears about what his controversial, anti-Israel tweets might mean about his ability to teach.”

    I don’t think so. The question is, do you actually want to hire a guy like that in the first place, and is it too late to back out of a mistake, now that he’s slipped up and shown his hand? I think they got really lucky, and did not have to be saddled with that mistake (just as Notre Dame dodged the bullet with the most dangerous Islamist in the world, Tariq Ramadan–imagine, a Catholic school having a guy like that indoctrinating its students).

    The quote goes on,

    ” “Are you trying to inform your students about the various views or perspectives that are out there or are you trying to enlist your students in some kind of political agenda?” Fish asked. “It’s very simple, and if you keep those other questions out of it, a lot of confusion can be avoided.” ”

    That’s fine, once you’re stuck with the hire. The best option is, not hire a dangerous loon in the first place.

    My point is, this does not relate to James Tracy. He’s not in the category of Ramadan or Salaita, hires that clearly should not be made in the first place, because they are absolutely inappropriate, or Joy Karena, apparently, who seems to have a political agenda completely unrelated to her teaching task. Karena, apparently, teaches “composition” (does that mean she’s an English teacher, giving classes in writing?). She is using her position to launch a public persona as a political grandstander, trumpeting a position, and that agenda, that program she has assembled, is entirely unrelated to her field (if I understand the term “composition” properly in this context).

    That is to say, James Tracy’s field is media criticism, and what he has done outside the classroom in entirely congruent with the expertise he was hired for possessing. He has examined media promotions and pageants, objectively, as an academic. No sensationalism. No self-promotion. No politics.

    It strikes me that this woman is precisely the opposite. It is dubious, in my opinion, to call it “courageous” of Oberlin, which is one of the most “liberal” (which in our Orwellian era means illiberal) and anti-Israel places in America, to defend her promotions, which fit right in with the thought that prevails there. Indeed, I’d be shocked if they treated her the way Tracy’s college treated him–it would cause the academy across America to denounce how they punished her for “telling truth to power,” or some such platitudinous nonsense.

    Tracy, on the other hand, had to be destroyed because he was genuinely pointing out the corruption modern America has had eating away at its core. Pointing out the evils Israel perpetuates is not a threat to the system at all. It fits right in with academic fashion. She is indistinguishable from any of the rest of academics who tolerate/promore “Israel Apartheid Week” and the BDS movement Hamas and the PLO have going on in those places. All of these people agree with her.

    What James has been doing is precisely the opposite: if people start paying attention to his work, the whole system comes into question. It’s an existential fear he generates in the breast of the established order academia has transmogrified into.

    1. Of course, Patrick, we could expect you to be “objective” in the case of Muslim faculty. There is not only anti-Islamic sentiment on U.S. campuses, but the FBI actively seeks to eliminate Muslim faculty on the slightest suspicion.
      You seem to cherry pick in your advocacy for free speech. Hey, if its the pro-Zionist speech you agree with that’s great. However, the First Amendment exists to protect unwanted, hated speech.
      Because it is a private college, Oberlin is in a better legal position to fire the professor than FAU was with Tracy. The standard is lower than is the case for government employees and public institutions:

      1. I don’t know where you get that idea, Peace. People can say anything they want, and I have no desire to stop them. They could read the Koran out loud, and the Hadith, too–you can’t get any more hateful a brand of speech than that. I don’t care. What made you think I did?

        What I DO love is Israel making the world take notice of the coordinated smear campaign of lies against it, to perhaps flush some of the rats out hiding. I wonder how many parents were aware of the nature of the people Oberlin hires to indoctrinate their kids? I wonder if a bit of negative publicity can get some of those sleepy parents to do a little due-diligence for a change, instead of being surprised when after a half-decade of bank account drain their flesh and blood return home as hate-filled enemies of what they tried to raise them to be.

        One can only hope.

        1. Having been through dozens of courses in college and on the graduate level, I believe that it is beyond naive to expect that indoctrination is not part and parcel of that process. As long as the professor has an ego,his or her worldview will be fed to the students. I cannot think of a single professor whose personal views remained unknown after teaching a semester long course.So, we can all believe in the big lie that we are not indoctrinated or propagandized on campus, however subtly, or, we can call a spade a spade, and, admit that certain indoctrination is accepted while sharing other views are attacked.

          Personally, I believe that both the government and corporations would prefer an academic environment in which there is little or no core liberal arts teaching. I believe that what they want is the production of technocratic drones whose powers of keen perception are limited by the strictures of their major area of study. This would transform the university into a longer version of trade school. An example of this at present is an expedited one year or slightly longer MBA.

        2. Isn’t that my point, Peace? These places have to choose who they hire to indoctrinate the pocketbooks’ kids. They need to be vetted.

          If you are Notre Dame, which is consciously a Catholic institution, the very idea of hiring Tariq Ramadan is simply insane. What were they thinking? If you are University of Illinois, you have less skin in the ideological game, and Steven Salaita only becomes an issue when he reveals his true heart in public, embarrassing them just before being finalized. I guarantee that the State of Illinois, whose organ U of I is, does not feel offended by Salaita’s hate–only by bring found out when the world discovered that this was the sort of fellow U of I thinks should be filling young minds with his ideas.

          Oberlin, as I said, is one of the most illiberal institutions in America. They probably knew full well what that woman believed when they hired her; they hold the parents of the kids they indoctrinate in utter contempt.

          What does it take to blast that scam wide open? To get people to Just Say No to colleges like Oberlin, and force them either into bankruptcy, or into fundamental restructuring? If Israel can do it, I’d love to watch the process unfold.

        3. I’ve always wondered how my husband got his job. Granted, he teaches at a community college, but he was also offered a tenure-track position at a 4-year school, too (he chose the CC: he loves teaching over research, and wanted to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond, rather than vice-versa). He’s well-trained with a broad and long teaching history, but he’s unapologetically principled and conservative/libertarian. Plus, he’s a white male. That’s four strikes against him.

          Women tend to like him, and his department is almost all women; that worked in his favor. Also, he was hired in the ’00s…things were different, even just then. Still, I look at immenently qualified teaching candidates like Mary Grabar (and now Dr. Tracy) and wonder what’s to become of us.

          Even at the CC level there’s political wrangling (it’s a microcosm of the larger picture), and it is UGLY.

          I think we’ve devolved.

        4. Right. The issue, to me, is not one of free speech. People can say whatever they want. The question is, why is a person hired as a college professor?

          In my opinion, a large part of it should be to do with good character and sound philosophy. The goal, after all, is the maturation of minds. Crazed loons and people with axes to grind should simply not be considered, and certainly not hired.

          But colleges have become political institutions in our time. Consider this insane example:

          Wheaton is an evangelical college. People send their kids there because the college agrees with the family doing the sending about the nature of Christ, the Trinity, and the Bible. Yet this loon thinks that just because she tricked them into hiring her, she can spring the trap and indoctrinate those young evangelicals in the finer points of heresy. And then complain loudly, and rudely, when the college discovers the horrible mistake it had made.

          And the press is on the PRETENDER’S side.

          As I say, these institutions should have a core, a principled agenda of furthering education as the Western tradition understood it for 1,500 years. Which means, scandals like the one this MHB article is about should never happen. That woman should never have been hired in the first place.

        5. Then I hope that you would agree that the same standard could be used to dismiss a yamaka wearing Jew. The EEOC allows a person who is not affiliated with a person in a protected class to assert the others rights by proxy, and themselves be protected. However, the professor probably could assert a claim under Title 7. Even if her performance was not great- a jury could find a nondiscriminatory reason to be an unprotected pretext. Hence, a “confidential agreement”, i.e., a “payoff”.

        6. My point has nothing to do with performance. It is to do with content. If a teacher is teaching things in direct contradiction to the things the institution stands for, they hired the wrong person, and the mistake is corrected by firing that person. That person could be the best teacher in the school (which would only make the need to terminate that much more urgent).

        7. I really think that college professors’ speech should only become an issue when they present it as incontrovertible fact in the classroom. This is close to the line attributed to Dr. Fisher. I.e., if a professor chooses to discuss details of 9/11 having nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy, or, examines mass shootings only as false flags, or, examines the Holocaust using the 6 million dead figure then that professor must allow students full classroom debate and counter speech. This is basically the application of the Brandeis rule to controversial speech, i.e., the full and fair opportunity for counter speech. The Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis should apply, and, faulty ideas be exposed and corrected. The politically correct model is designed to further government and interest group monopolies on speech that inevitably justify official lies and witch hunts against those expressing views outside of a narrowly defined acceptable range.

        8. Well, my point pertains even more than ever in your model: the philosophy of university, what it is supposed to be, why would any individual be hired at a given college, and what purpose should they be expected to advance?

          I’d like the classical university model to be restored, where everyone was expected to adhere to the principles of Western Civilization, and teach the texts that made it, and nothing else. Dream on.

          So, given what we have, we need to vet these people really thoroughly. How wildly divergent from classical Western standards should the new hire be allowed to be? What do we want the next generation to know? What do we want them to believe? If these postmodern ideas pertaining to pedagogy are to prevail, a college has to keep out the most pernicious ones. (All that alliteration was unintentional.)

          Tracy, as I say, is the right kind–which makes him the WRONG kind, in the world we live in today.

          Given that, parents need to vet the colleges intensively. Angela Davis has been teaching for most of her adult life. In college. Believe it or not. So has Billy Ayers, who should have spent his adult life in prison–or have been executed for his crimes. No one is fired for those travesties of insane hiring. No one is even embarrassed. “Israel Apartheid Week” is celebrated on campuses across the country, and no one gets fired for it. It’s sickening.

          The vetters (i.e. administration) vet sickeningly, which is why universities are increasingly worthless. They throw away Tracy, when they should be finding more like him. And they retain worthless people who have the “right” political opinions. We live in a looking-glass world.

    2. patrickchatsamiably, you have an extremely biased and propagandized view of reality, which is not reality at all.

      1. “…you have an extremely biased and propagandized view of reality”

        You bet. And guess what? Joy Karena does, too.

        So what?

        The greatest thing about MHB is it is a venue where we can learn exactly HOW we are being propagandized. The truth, as God says, will set us free.

        I am EXTREMELY biased. On the side out the truth (which is the genuine reality). I spend so much time here because I wish to reduce the degree of propagandization I suffer from.

        Tracy taught that process in college. This “composition” teacher he writes about strikes me as a great propagandist for the lies Hamas’ BDS promotion is inflicting upon colleges everywhere. Couldn’t be more opposite.

        And, unless you missed it, that’s my point. The academy defends a loon like her, and can’t find the remotest impulse to defend him. Why? Because they agree with her. Israel is the sexiest hate-object going.

        Truth about false-flags ushering in the New World Order? Uh, take a number…don’t call us, we’ll call you.

        Tracy can point out that this silly person was defended when he wasn’t, but he really should point out why.

        Talk about bias. This bias, incidentally, is not in his favor. He’s doing himself no favor by siding with the “Israel Apartheid Week” types. It won’t get them to come over to his side, and defend him. That was my point, after all.

        James Tracy is standing alone. He can’t get them to come to his side, ever, because he’s revealing the nature of the game. And clearly, this element of the situation, he is not aware of. They will never see the equivalency; she is on the side of the angels, from their point of view, and he threatens to end the system they expect to carry them through retirement and beyond.

        The Israel-hating Left are the same people who are ushering in the New world Order. They THINK they are opposed to “zionism” (not the nationalism-meaning of the term, the return to the land, etc.). Hatred of Israel is part of the game our masters are forcing the world to play. Israel is the standard-issue “bad guy,” straight out of central casting. These people have no clue how they have been played.

        In general, James Tracy stands outside this silly game. It is disappointing when he falls for these easy traps.

        Academic freedom is good. The First Amendment is good. But these things can and are used as propaganda. Tracy, of all people, should detect it when it is being promoted.

        1. Patrick noted:

          “The Israel-hating Left are the same people who are ushering in the New world Order. They THINK they are opposed to “zionism” (not the nationalism-meaning of the term, the return to the land, etc.). Hatred of Israel is part of the game our masters are forcing the world to play. Israel is the standard-issue “bad guy,” straight out of central casting. These people have no clue how they have been played.”

          Not everyone who hates Israel is on the Left. I consider myself to be a conservative Christian, and I DESPISE Israel! I am simply amazed that everyone doesn’t feel this way. Here is just one of countless reasons that I hate Israel, or more properly the ANTI-CHRIST JEWS!

          You say you are biased “on the side of truth”. So, in view of the contents of this article, has this changed your beliefs in any way? If not, why not?

        2. The article is wrong. It provides no proof that “Israel did it,” and it does not explain why they would want to “do it.” It does, however, contain this quote, under the heading Netanyahu Openly Gleeful of 9/11 Terror Attacks:

          “Apparently Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is so confident in Zionist control and domination that he haphazardly stated publicly that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were “good” for US – Israeli relations, and would generate “immediate sympathy” for the Israeli cause of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians.”

          Any time someone writes something along the lines of “the Israeli cause of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians,” you know they are deceiving you, because it is a vicious lie. No one who talks that way ever offers specific evidence, because there is none. “Ethnic cleansing” is the forced removal of one part of a mingled population so that that ethnicity is no longer present. The happiest Arab population in the world is the million or so Arab citizens of Israel, who enjoy all the rights of every other Israeli citizen. There are no plans to remove them, and no desire to do so.

          This quote reveals an agenda.

          Israel did not “do” 9/11; we don’t know who “did” 9/11. We know many of the players, and the article gives us some of them. I have long been familiar with this material. I have often mentioned here at MHB that Israel is ruled by Shabbateans, and has been from the start. I am no apologist for Shabbateanism; I consider it a monstrous evil. Not long ago, I invited the reader to examine the Vigilant Citizen’s description of the Israel Supreme Court building ( If any place is more evil than that, I don’t know of it (except perhaps the District of Columbia.

          The people of Israel have been victimized by the Shabbateans who run the country, just as the people of America have been victimized by the monsters who run America. I do not hate America; I hate Washington, and all its evil. There is a difference between Israel and the Shabbateans who have control over it, just as there is a difference between America and the boundless evil of Washington.

          You say “I consider myself to be a conservative Christian, and I DESPISE Israel! I am simply amazed that everyone doesn’t feel this way.” By your logic, you should be “simply amazed that everyone doesn’t” DESPISE America, you being a conservative Christian and all.

          If you believe the Bible, you know that we are obviously approaching the last of the last days; Israel is God’s time-clock. It was led by evil people the first time Christ came to dwell with us, and the Bible is clear about it being the same way the second time, too.

          Don’t throw the baby out with the bath-water.

        3. Patrick wrote:

          “Any time someone writes something along the lines of “the Israeli cause of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians,” you know they are deceiving you, because it is a vicious lie. No one who talks that way ever offers specific evidence, because there is none. ”

          There is tons of evidence of ethnic cleansing going on in Palestine. Just take 5 minutes to watch these videos.

          There were people in those buildings – innocent men, women and children. Your tax dollars are paying for this mayhem and destruction. If you don’t have a problem with this, then not only are you not a Christian, you’re not even human.

        4. Weird.

          Mr. Smith, you apparently can’t comprehend what you read. Or you didn’t read what I wrote. I wrote this:

          ” “Ethnic cleansing” is the forced removal of one part of a mingled population so that that ethnicity is no longer present. The happiest Arab population in the world is the million or so Arab citizens of Israel, who enjoy all the rights of every other Israeli citizen. There are no plans to remove them, and no desire to do so.”

          You show three videos of buildings blown up in a war. And think you have proved this is Israel engaging in “ethnic cleansing”?

          Are you mentally impaired?

        5. Patrick says:
          “There are no plans to remove them, and no desire to do so.”

          Poll: Nearly 50% of Israeli Jews support transfer or expulsion of Arabs from Israel

          “A new poll has revealed that nearly half of Israeli Jews are in favor of the expulsion or transfer of Arabs from Israel.

          The survey, conducted by leading polling group the American Pew Research Center between the end of 2014 and mid-2015, concluded before the current wave of terror broke out. The Pew Center published its results on Tuesday.”

        6. No, but evidently you are. I wasn’t counting on the videos becoming “embedded” here when I posted to URLs for them. Had you gone to YouTube, as I was thinking would happen, you would realize that all of these videos are of Israelis bombing Palestinians in Gaza.

          Now, are you going to apologize for insinuating that I am “mentally impaired”? I’m not holding my breath on that. Nor am I expecting you to retract your ridiculous statement that Arabs in Israel enjoy all the rights of every other Israeli citizen. You are obviously getting all your information from Israeli, or at least Zionist, sources. These are biased, to say the least, if not flat-out lying, as these videos clearly show.

        7. You say: ” …you would realize that all of these videos are of Israelis bombing Palestinians in Gaza.”

          I DID realize that. Here’s what I said: “You show three videos of buildings blown up in a war. And think you have proved this is Israel engaging in “ethnic cleansing”?”

          It was a war. Buildings get blown up in wars. Hamas was launching rockets from residential neighborhoods, specifically hospitals and schools, goading Israel in the gleeful hope that when Israel retaliated, children would die, so that they could complain to the world press about the cruelty of Israel.

          You seem to believe that Israel does this routinely, not just in that specific few weeks when Israel invaded to put a stop to the terror rockets (and to find and destroy the terror tunnels).

          The war against Hamas terror was not “ethnic cleansing.” The fact that you can’t see the difference is what made me suspect you have a cognitive issue. It’s not hard to see that they are two distinct things. Israel endured many months of rocket attacks from Gaza before finally going to war over it. When the war was over, and the attacks stopped, Israel no longer had to buildings.

          You say: “Nor am I expecting you to retract your ridiculous statement that Arabs in Israel enjoy all the rights of every other Israeli citizen.”

          It is not ridiculous. It is the truth. Of course I’m not going to retract it; that’s like asking me to say that American blacks son’t have the same rights as whites.

          Here is a fine recent article on the subject:

          Here’s another:

          It is true that Arab Israelis suffer social discrimination, but they have all the rights of any other Israeli; they sit on the Supreme Court and in Parliament.

          This is not difficult information to find out.

          You say: “You are obviously getting all your information from Israeli, or at least Zionist, sources. These are biased, to say the least, if not flat-out lying, as these videos clearly show.”

          There can be no question of bias here. Either Arab Israelis have the same rights an any other Israeli, or they don’t. It’s a matter of fact, and it makes no difference who states the facts.

          The videos, as I pointed out, show no such thing. All they show is footage from a very short war, the exact same kind of footage one sees from any war anywhere in the world. But more to the point, Gaza is not Israel. The Arabs who live there are not Israeli citizens. Don’t you know that?

        8. Patrick, are you totally BLIND, or just what is it? The destruction shown in these short video clips was COMPLETELY unwarranted. Did you see any rockets, mortar fire, snipers etc. shooting at Israel from these residential apartment buildings, before Israel completely annihilated them with what had to have been 500+ pound bombs? No, you didn’t, because THERE WAS NO THREAT TO ISRAEL FROM ANY OF THESE BUILDINGS!

          Damn, you say you read the Bible. Aren’t you familiar with the passage: “There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE?”

          Yes, I am aware that Gaza is not part of Israel. What are you saying here? Are you saying that these acts were justified because Gaza was not part of Israel?

          Yes, I’ve heard all the horror stories about Hamas’ rockets. Vastly overblown. Can you show me any videos showing damage that these rockets did to settlements in Israel? I doubt it. I have yet to see ANY damage from these rockets. Certainly nothing on the scale of what Israel is doing to Palestinian homes and apartments. The two scenarios simply cannot be compared.

          You should be aware that Hamas was deliberately created and managed BY ISRAEL. Its purpose initially was disband Yasser Arafat’s PLO, which was a real thorn in the side of the Israelis. Now it serves the function of being the “bogeyman on call”. As this article

          points out:

          “undermining the peace process has always been the real target of Hamas and has played into the political ambitions of Likud. Every time Israeli and Palestinian negotiators appeared ready to take a major step forward achieving peace, an act of Hamas terrorism has scuttled the peace process and pushed the two sides apart.”

          Israel does not want peace with the Palestinians – it wants the Palestinians to permanently LEAVE. So it orders Hamas to launch puny bottle rocket attacks on largely uninhabited parts of Israel, in order to justify all-out retaliation in the form of 2,000-pound bombs hitting residential buildings.

          The motto of the Israel Mossad is: “BY WAY OF DECEPTION, thou shalt do war.” Israel, and for that matter Jews in general, are constantly practicing deception on us, a la 9/11, Sandy Hook, and all the other false-flag attacks you can name. Jews are the ones doing these things. Or perhaps they get Freemasons like Craft International to do their dirty work, like the Boston Bombing or San Bernardino. They are always blaming Muslims for what THEY DO! ISIS or the Islamic state is yet another Israeli creation (why are all the ISIS leaders get treated in Israeli hospitals for their battle injuries?)

          Patrick, you need to shut off the idiot box and quit reading Time magazine. Both these media outlets are totally controlled by the Jew World Order. By watching or reading them, you are getting brainwashed into believing a huge pack of lies, which are only serving to finalize a Satanic world government, which as a Christian you should be totally opposed to.

        9. Toni: the survey you link to does not specify if the question involved stripping Israeli Arabs of their citizenship and expelling them, or if it had to do with pushing out Arabs who are not citizens. If I had to guess, I’d bet they were thinking about the latter. Here’s why:

        10. Here’s another one, Toni, that makes me suspect that the people of Israel are reaching the breaking point when it comes to enduring terrorism:

          “Palestinians are celebrating his murder in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank and the terrorist who carried out the attack is being celebrated as a martyr by Palestinian political leadership.”

          “From the River to the Sea.” Just imagine being an Israeli. The fear. You can’t trust the people you see on the street not to randomly kill you.

        11. Patrick,
          Your article says, “Hamas announced that they’re celebrating their martyrs last night.”

          HAMAS. As in the false political organization constructed by Israel to undermine the PLO.

          Quoting Mr. Smith now, quoting Henry Makow, (as you’ve undoubtedly read):

          “You should be aware that Hamas was deliberately created and managed BY ISRAEL. Its purpose initially was disband Yasser Arafat’s PLO, which was a real thorn in the side of the Israelis. Now it serves the function of being the “bogeyman on call”.

          As this article

          points out:

          “undermining the peace process has always been the real target of Hamas and has played into the political ambitions of Likud. Every time Israeli and Palestinian negotiators appeared ready to take a major step forward achieving peace, an act of Hamas terrorism has scuttled the peace process and pushed the two sides apart.”

          I wouldn’t take the truth of the story of West Point Graduate Taylor Force from your source, Patrick. Force might be dead, and if he is, God forbid, it’s for political reasons that are tragically never brought to the surface.

          As we are told boldly and outright by those who do not have our interests at heart, war is done by deception.

          I’m sorry you think it’s a “giant hate-fest” to say so. The same could be said of your opinions.

    1. This is an utterly treasonous act in Washington that should put politicians in PRISON for allowing such a practise by elected officials, could there be any better evidence of the coup that the the Zionist have accomplished than this???

  8. Some one is messin with MHB. There have been telltale signs for several days.

    If there is any way to fortify the security of MHB I suggest this be done right away.

    1. Yes, I noticed that too. This morning the website appeared to have vanished completely. I took a screenshot of the message on the page that popped up whenever I tried to access MHB. The message made no sense at all.

  9. Karega, as Turley says, is entitled to write any drivel she wants on her personal media, even if it’s trite and totally unoriginal. Let’s get real about blacks and the Jews. The so called investigative media refused to comment that Hillary won over Bernie down South because generally blacks don’t like Jews, especially down South. None of these sources even had the gumption to out Hillary, but they attacked Rubio like mad for his louche past. If any media, besides one small article on the DM, featured what Hillary’s personal preferences are, which we know don’t include Bill, then she may not have gotten all those votes in the South either. I wager that going forward no investigative or mainstream media will expose Hillary either.
    Here are forty committed professors at Columbia who aren’t being fired for their anti-Semitic/Israel rants. So clearly James’s being fired has no legal basis – except that the funds for the drills, as James points out, would clearly be seen as fraudulent, which isn’t the case of Karega or the Columbia fervent ranters. No loss of funds with their opinions.

    1. I agree with everything you say here, Marzi, except that drill money is only a small part of the problem Tracy represents for the bad guys.

      I argue in my comment yesterday that Tracy’s outside work was perfectly congruent with his classroom work; that is, they hired a media analyst, not a man dragging a soapbox for self promotion and political pontification. And that’s exactly what they got.

      It’s the CONTENT of his focus on media promotions that was the problem. He relentlessly drives closer and closer to the core of what is going on in the world, what the evil is. This is unacceptable.

      Daniel, just above you, concludes his remarks with this paragraph:

      “As another way to put this and to offer Karega some respectful and constructive advice, if she truly believes 9/11 to be a JIZM job, she may be more effective–and personally safer?–denouncing the Ku-Klux-Klan, Amy Goodman, CAIR, CodePink, Hamas, the Iranian theocrats and many others for failing to educate their members, followers, supporters, or subjects on 9/11’s JIZM connection. She may even be more effective by starting at the beginning and faulting them for not affirming 9/11’s essence as a transparently covered self-evident false flag.”

      Now, there is no question that there is a large “JIZM” element in the 9/11 event, and his advice to Karega could apply equally to any of the Columbia zealots: focus on the silence of the gatekeepers.

      In the fantastic first season of the television show True Detective there is a thread of clues referencing The Yellow King. The is a web site that does in depth analysis of complex, well-written shows like that, and sometimes you need a resource like that. One of the articles linked to a “must read” piece that tells us what the Yellow King is a reference to. It is from a 19th century book of essays which all have to do with a play. Only the first act of that play is reproduced, because, the story goes, reading any more of it will drive a human being insane. It is about an evil so monstrous as to be unthinkable. No one is capable of facing it.

      That book about the Yellow King influenced many writers of VERY disturbing literature, HP Lovecraft being one. I only read one book of Lovecraft stories, in my teens, and it troubles me to this day.

      We don’t know who the masked faces belonged to in Eyes Wide Shut. We don’t know who rules the world just below Satan and just above the Masons. But THAT’S who was behind 9/11. It’s who Paul is talking about in Ephesians chapter 6.

      The powers we can see are bad enough; the things that go on in the dark councils that energize those powers are so evil to know about those things will drive a mortal man insane. And they DO NOT want to be known by people like James Tracy or the people who follow his work–and they CERTAINLY don’t want an accredited university to lend such endeavors a patina of respectability.

      As I have said many times, James Tracy fulfilled his calling too well. He’s a true scientist, not a ham-handed repeater of half-conspiracies, like this Karega woman. They can allow her to function without fearing exposure, because it’s all surface with people like that. Tracy’s work is a genuine threat. They didn’t know that they really WERE hiring the right guy for the job. As I said yesterday, this is to do with the philosophy of university; the people colleges hire can make trouble for those institutions in different ways. Drawing Israel’s attention by the ham-handed pontificating of a lowly English teacher is easily dealt with. They could even endure the heartburn that comes with a Salaita or Ramadan. But a tenured professor who is looking for the Yellow King? Well, that’s a bridge too far.

    2. That is utterly ridiculous. Jews founded the NAACP and funded (and illicitly orchestrated) most of the ‘Civil Rights’ movement for blacks. The facts simply don’t support your assertions.

      Bernie Sanders isn’t the most well-behaved jew, which, alongside Hillary’s complete succoring of the most extremist factions of the Snivel Rights Establishment, accounts for his losses to her. Sanders actually has some authenticity in his socialism; Hillary is pure mercenary for the elites and their partners in parasitism. Sanders isn’t totally controllable (I don’t support him regardless).

      Get real.

      James Tracy struck at the heart of the nexus of power by exposing the collusion between government and media, both of which have become oligopolies which serve jewish interests above all else at the direct expense of europeans’.

      1. “That is utterly ridiculous. Jews founded the NAACP and funded (and illicitly orchestrated) most of the ‘Civil Rights’ movement for blacks.”

        Yep, When they decided in 1965 to do a 180 and co-opt the Blacks.
        But the “they” is ALL of them.

        These so called called “Jews” have a lot of help from Traitors of all Races and and religions…They are All Guilty

      2. If by blacks one means “people who think Al Sharpton represents them as a group,” not one in a hundred thousand gives a gig if some dilettantes from the race they viscerally hate tried to help them a lifetime ago. If you were to stand in front of Freddy’s Fashion Mart, as the enraged mob was about to burn down the place, and tried to remind them of that history to calm them down, they would probably murder you, too.

        After Barry Soetoro moved into the White House, Jeremiah Wright commented that can’t talk to him anymore because “them Joooz” won’t allow it. Wright speaks for most blacks when he spits out the words “them Joooz” as if he found a cockroach in his barbecue sandwich.

    3. “Let’s get real about blacks and the Jews…” Your gross generalities about “blacks” – at least – are trite, myopic, and ignorant. “Blacks” in the South who have a bias against Jewish people are merely continuing to, in a feeble attempt to curry favor, mime a centuries-old animus of Jewish people espoused by those who enslaved them. The animus continues as does the hope for Black people that adopting the behaviors and beliefs of “Whites” will garner them a modicum of privilege, thus separating them from their peers.

  10. Karega seems to be taking personal risks indeed, alas for a limited purpose.The idea that 9/11 was a Jewish/Israeli/Zionist/Mossad–or any “JIZM” combination thereof–job is assuredly closer to reality than the myth based on Osama bin Laden’s airplanes, but is based on a narrow and woefully insufficient comprehension of the 9/11 conspiracy.

    It bears repeating that the most alarming and most promising 9/11 subconspiracy is neither the false flag–even though the televised controlled demolition of the Twin Towers was an outrageously large criminal undertaking–nor its amateurish cover-up behind Osama bin Laden’s aerial ballet–even though this was necessarily a complex project involving many different government agencies–but the censorship thereof. The 9/11 censorship is the permanent and worldwide process by which institutions, potentates and opinion-makers of all kinds refuse to adapt their messages to 9/11’s essence as a false flag. The 9/11 project was literally unthinkable without guarantees that the 9/11 censorship would have worked as impeccably as it has.

    Accordingly and paradoxically, the most formidable and most dangerous 9/11 agents are not the very competent demolitionists and public servants (JIZM or other) who prepared, executed, and covered up 9/11, but the countless bully pulpits who ostensibly oppose the unbridled U.S. warmongering and other policies inspired by 9/11. These include governments, mass media, schools and religious organizations with few sympathies toward JIZM.

    As another way to put this and to offer Karega some respectful and constructive advice, if she truly believes 9/11 to be a JIZM job, she may be more effective–and personally safer?–denouncing the Ku-Klux-Klan, Amy Goodman, CAIR, CodePink, Hamas, the Iranian theocrats and many others for failing to educate their members, followers, supporters, or subjects on 9/11’s JIZM connection. She may even be more effective by starting at the beginning and faulting them for not affirming 9/11’s essence as a transparently covered self-evident false flag.


    1. Your point that the real story is about how those who criticize that which was done in the name of 9/11 can never cut to the chase and dismiss the entire event as fabricated, due partially to a climate of political correctness, is very pertinent to the discussion of the false flags which seem to have multiplied. It’s like a bag of popcorn, slow at first, then accelerating. The fact that the popcorn as it were is salted with designated story tellers, vetted ahead of time, is something one can hardly miss.

      The effect of the discussions about whether or not some war, some torture practice, some new form of warcraft like drones, is consonant with our values and heritage can consume large amounts of energy while ignoring basic causes. The justifications of TSA searches, of martial law shut-downs, etc. arise out of a belief in the genuineness of these incidents, and rouse the public to a fury against “the terrorists.”

      “They went that a way” is a common diversionary tactic, but the older one of blaming one group for a concerted attack is also common. It never gets at the underlying truth. But that is thought its advantage. Truth is a dirty word and truthers are madmen in the post 9/11 world constructed by the masters of deceit who have been at work.

      Many reasons have been found to explain why it happened when it did. Some, like Mike Ruppert, believed the motive was peak oil and the end of the petroleum based economy more than a century old, that made our lives so convenient and allowed our population to expand. Others feel it is about Israel trying to control the Middle East. Others see it as pure power out for what it can get.

      Before one can assign all the causes, although this may comfort those who need to find a reason, the real problem is that things move forward on false premises. We are living a lie. It is a modern lie, and there are those alive today who made it and are enjoying the game. But throughout history, men have been ruled by lies, almost universally. The difference is, this one is ours to pass on or to refute. This is our time in history.

  11. I read about Joy Karega a few days ago in an article on (which also mentions Tracy, but I didn’t realize right away that it was quoting the actual Stanley Fish. Probably because I didn’t realize Florida International University was an actual school. Doesn’t it sound like a cruise ship, or an “eCampus,” or something?

    I’m familiar with Stanley Fish because he’s a major John Milton scholar and because he was one of the first to demonstrate that the reader’s response to a text is a valid critique. Both are subjects close to my heart.

    So after I read the article, I did some research on him and was unprepared to discover that free speech is an area Fish is trying to colonize, in order to assert political control. In fact, political control is how Fish defines free speech. Listen to this:

    “ ‘Free speech’ is just a name we give to verbal behavior that serves the substantive agendas we wish to advance; and we give our preferred verbal behaviors that name when we can, when we have the power to do so, because in the rhetoric of American life, the label, ‘free speech’ is the one you want your favorites to wear. Free speech, in short, is not an independent value but a political prize, and if that prize has been captured by a politics opposed to yours, it can no longer be invoked in ways that further your purposes, for it is now an obstacle to those purposes.”

    I found this quote in an essay Fish wrote with the following frontispiece:

    In the quote from Fish in the above article, the relevant phrase is: “…if you keep those other questions out of it, a lot of confusion can be avoided.” Even though the rest of the paragraph sounds like he’s endorsing the freedom of teachers to teach, Fish’s buried assumption is that their speech will be regulated and politically predetermined.

    So it seems to me that Patrick is wrong to think he disagrees with Fish. To the contrary, the two are in perfect alignment. Even their examples of the kind of speech needing to be regulated are the same, consisting mostly of criticism of Israel.

    I think Fish can be a disingenuous writer. Here’s another example, this one from the essay I referenced. Fish uses Milton’s Areopagitica to back up his assertion that free speech exists only in a space “carved out” by suppressed speech. In the Areopagitica, Milton denounces the censorship by the Catholic Church under which he suffered. He calls for their censorious policies to be “extirpated” in the same way they have sought to extirpate the free exchange of ideas. Milton writes:

    “I mean not tolerated popery, and open superstition, which as it extirpates all religious and civil supremacies, so itself should be extirpated.”

    Here’s how Fish describes the thinking of his supposed hero:

    “…after having celebrated the virtues of toleration and unregulated publication in passages that find their way into every discussion of free speech and the First Amendment, John Milton catches himself up short and says, of course I didn’t mean Catholics, them we exterminate.”

    By substituting the word “exterminate,” with its 20th Century allusions, for the word extirpate, Fish dishonestly conflates the suppression of censorship with the killing of people. He then goes on, in apparent approval of this sentiment, to use this mischaracterization of Milton as justification to underwrite his own call for the regulation of speech.

    I don’t think this is a “silly game,” and I don’t think Tracy is outside of it. I think he’s standing right in the middle of it where he belongs. I was extremely heartened to read his spirited defense of Kerega this morning. He is forceful and quite correct in all his assertions. It must be gratifying to her, too, to have such support from a fellow academic.

    I hope Karega can be interviewed on Tracy’s radio show.
    Here’s a source link to Fish’s illiberal essay:

    1. Professor Fish is a career sophist, but his position on this matter, that professors can express their controversial views, as long as they do not present them to students as being fact, is most reasonable.

      1. The trouble I see with Stanley Fish being the go-to guy for a quote in a free speech story is that he doesn’t believe in the First Amendment.

        He gets the final quote in the Inside Higher Ed article as though he’s the authority, the voice of reason who liberally allows academics their say as long as they keep it out of the classroom. One could attack the merits of that assertion, but the point is, his emphasis is on policing their speech, which he wants to broaden in authority.

        He won’t stop at classrooms. He openly advocates for laws like the Canadian system in which a person can be imprisoned for speech. He supports campus speech codes.

        He literally argues that free speech is defined by the speech you don’t allow. Please read the pdf; maybe I didn’t explain it well.

        I think it’s pernicious that Fish has taken over “center” stage for free speech stories, so that his position will be mistaken for normative. That’s why I described it as colonizing the issue. He wants to be the authority, but he’s an infiltrator with the intent of subverting the First Amendment.

        1. I’ll have to take a closer look at the pdf. His bio on wiki makes him out to be a sophist who is for p.c. conduct codes, and very much anti-free speech (defining free speech as its opposite in classic doublespeak). However, if he is being accurately quoted here, then he is supporting Tracy and the Oberlin professor and others-as far as that goes, if his only caveat is that they do not use their classes to proselytize, then he is right on that point. He is a bad representative of the First Amendment, agreed, but, one has to look at the issues somewhat surgically. Goebbels was not a good man, but his prediction about an iron curtain descending upon half of Europe was spot on. What I find most offensive about the article is the assumption that everything stated by Tracy, the Oberlin professor and one other named dissident professor, is false. A journalist printing that controversial issues, condemned in the press are ipso facto false is a state of affairs in which journalism becomes a rubber stamp of political orthodoxy. This is journalism defined as anti-journalism. The press, as a fifth estate, is supposed to function as an overseer of and cynical questioner of government. The press now is a largely a mouthpiece of political establishment, and a harsh critic of those who question government- a core job function that it has abandoned.

        2. I totally agree with your assessment of the characterizations of Tracy and Kerega in the article and the indictment of journalism it represents. That is a big story.

          But I still think Fish is using reasonable sounding language as a political strategy. If we accept that professors can be censored in their classrooms, we’re helping to carve out that space Fish describes where one person’s “free speech” trumps that of another. Once that cultural precedent is established, all that’s left is renegotiating that space to ever expanding boundaries. That’s the political strategy, I think.

          On a personal note, when I was in college, some of my professors would say anything to get a response. I mean anything. Outside of their expertise? They went outside of their ken. As students we responded as provoked, with a lot of hooting and mock outrage as I recall.

          It was meant to set up an adversarial relationship that was fun and non-threatening, where you could challenge your teachers and be challenged and learn to defend your position. You certainly didn’t accept everything they had to say, because it was understood that even they didn’t believe everything they said.

          I don’t remember any concern at all about indoctrination.

      2. Why can’t controversial views be the truth? Has the Holohoax been presented as the truth and is thus OK to feed to gullible, controlled students?

      3. Professors should be able to present their controversial views to their students as fact, if they are, in fact, fact. Enuf already.

        1. Unless the two comments by Toni and Vivian are purposely moved in a direction other than the article’s content, the fact is, Joy Karega’s comments appeared only within the realm of social media and were not made in a classroom setting.

    2. “So it seems to me that Patrick is wrong to think he disagrees with Fish. To the contrary, the two are in perfect alignment. Even their examples of the kind of speech needing to be regulated are the same, consisting mostly of criticism of Israel.”

      Again, I don’t think any kind of speech should be regulated, and I don’t make an exception for Israel. I have stated this many times.

      What I DO think is that Israel is undergoing the largest gang-stalking operation the world has ever seen, and I can’t blame them for fighting back. I enthusiastically support victims of bullies when they punch the bully in the face.

      That does not mean that I advocate prior restraint of bullying.

      All (just about) college campuses are intensely accommodating to anti-Israel speech. The internet is saturated with calumnies against Israel and ridiculous defenses of the Arabs who seek to eliminate Israel. I do not advocate forcing colleges to impose silence on Israel’s detractors, or to “regulate” the internet in such a way that hate-speech regarding Israel is banned, or that pro-Hamas propaganda be banned either.

      What I whole-heartedly endorse is when Israel takes up the propaganda challenge, and fight back using that same tool. Point out in the most public way the lies, and counteract the poisoning of the minds of the broader populace, fight back on the internet by countering lies with truth.

      If part of that propaganda campaign to make everyone take notice of the concerted, coordinated, attempt to destroy Israel’s legitimacy includes the tactic of a demand that liars be silenced, I approve of that tactic only because it is a certainty that that silencing will never happen–and if by some catastrophic chance it DID happen I would be horrified, and seek to reverse that terrible effect.

      The propaganda demanding the coordinated campaign of calumny be ended is, in my opinion, a fine thing only to make the world aware of the campaign, and chasten the world for its support of it. The gang-stalking should not be considered justified; the stalkers should be shamed, and humiliated, not silenced. The only way to do that is, as I keep saying, counter fire with fire. Propaganda. Make the world aware of the bullying in any way possible.

      The thing is, this Karena woman fits right in at almost any university. Everyone thinks like her. No one even knows there’s another side to the story. Israel is evil and the Arabs are saintly. Duh. How to point out the fact that it’s simply not true? That’s a tough task. It’s about time, as I say, Israel is fighting back. Raising awareness of what is being done to it.

      I hope I can expect this to be the last time I need to make this clarification. It’s becoming tedious.

      1. It would appear that confining comments to Israel and not the Diaspora is very much limiting. Israel is not behind the Karega lambaste, the American jews are, for the most.

        1. It’s all of a piece. The good news in your comment is that more than one agency is combatting this gang-stalking episode. Hopefully, the publicity will do the trick, and the stalkers will be shamed, and back off.

          I’m not optimistic about that. Zechariah tells us that Jerusalem will become a “cup of trembling” for the whole world in the days before Jesus returns. Considering that it was an empty backwater no-one in the world cared about just a little over a century ago, we are in for quite a ride.

          The haters all need to ask themselves why Tibet is never going to become a “cup of trembling” for the whole world, but what happens to Jerusalem, which is not even a sea port is of intense interest even to ignorant college students who couldn’t pass the simplest quiz on its history, and know nothing but lies about its current reality in law and day-to-day life.

          The Bible foretold all of this. The people were regathered to the land, an empty land, from North, South, East and West–and opponents were regathered there too. The opponents have been indoctrinated to believe that their grandparents were not economic migrants, indeed that they are a “people.”

          The show is beginning. Make sure you have a seat, and your popcorn. It won’t be long before the worst wars in history will be fought in that land that only yesterday no one cared about. I’d advise you to read the book, though, before watching the televised movie; it’s all described in advance.

      2. Patrick, you have everything precisely backwards. You are blinded to truth because you have not shed yourself of your beLIEfs. Israel is clearly the aggressor against Palestine, ever since the very day they were unlawfully “given” Jerusalem in 1948 by the Brits, who had no right to do so. The Jews are ruthlessly killing women, children and other innocents, while still claiming to be the victim.

        WHO ARE THE JEWS ?
        We invented Communism.
        We are behind radical feminism.
        We are behind homosexualism and “gay marriage”.
        We are behind multiculturalism.
        We are behind anti-Christianity.
        We are behind a one world government.
        We are the “divider and conqueror”.
        We are the race baiter and the slave trader.
        We are censorship of free speech & the Truth.
        We are anti-gun.
        We are open borders.
        We are eminent domain.
        We are against English as the official language of the government.
        We are a dual citizen with no loyalty to your nation.
        We are the reason your daughter has low self esteem and desperately dresses like a whore.
        We are the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, central banking and big corporate money.
        We are usury, fractional reserve lending, world currency and fiat money.
        We are AIPAC, NareBLA, ACLU, ADL, NAACP, SPLC.
        We are the MSM, Hollywood, tabloid journalism and pornography.
        We are the corrupt judicial system that frees the guilty and imprisons the innocent.
        We are the nation’s high end drug dealer.
        We are the re-writer of history to our advantage.
        We are the military industrial complex.
        We are an unregulated nuclear state.
        We are an international terrorist.
        We are the WTC ’93, OKC ’95, 911, the Lavon Affair and the USS Liberty incident.
        We are “war by way of deception”.
        We are the aggressor, yet always the victim.
        We are the eternal radical.
        We believe that chaos equals cash and that gray equals green.
        We will defraud your country without conscience or consequence.
        We legislate from the bench, not from the Constitution.
        We contrive to make the simplest notion complicated.
        We succeed when you fail.
        We have murdered more innocents than any others.
        We are your last, your current and your next war.
        Who are WE?
        “It’s the JEWS, stupid” !!!

        1. You have obviously not read the Bible, much less studied it, THX. If you had, you’d know something of the people you cultivate such irrational hatred for. And you clearly know nothing of the history of Modern Israel.

          The first Zionists came to that portion of the Ottoman Empire in 1879. There were very few people there. It was a barren waste. The water resources of the North were unmanaged, resulting in vast regions of swamp land, and vast regions of desert. No one could make a functioning country out of the place, for centuries. Every time the Turks transported a new bunch of aliens to the region to try, they quickly drifted away because they could not make a go of it. But the Zionists tamed the streams of water, and irrigated the desert, creating a lush, beautiful country that attracted Arabs from the surrounding region. Yasser “that’s my baby” Arafat’s family, for example, came from Egypt. These alien Arabs came there for economic opportunities the Zionists were creating, for the first time in millennia.

          So when you say “Israel is clearly the aggressor against Palestine…” you sound like an ignoramus. Zionism CREATED “Palestine,” and Israel inherited it.

          And when you say “…ever since the very day they were unlawfully “given” Jerusalem in 1948 by the Brits, who had no right to do so”, you compound the demonstration that you know nothing of which you speak. First, they were not “given” it; they TOOK it from Britain, by declaring independence–just like we did here in America. They had to do this, because the British were breaking the law by refusing to give it to the Jews. The League of Nations Mandate Britain was legally tasked to implement was to create a country for the Jewish people in “Palestine,” which was defined as all of what today is Israel, Gaza, the so-called “West Bank,” as well as what today is called Jordan. Not only did Britain have the “right” to hand all those areas over to the Jews, they were required to do so BY LAW.

          Finally, there’s THIS bit of wonderful fantasy: “The Jews are ruthlessly killing women, children and other innocents, while still claiming to be the victim.” The only reason you believe these lies is the success of the coordinated gang-stalking Hamas and the terrorists who created it, the Moslem Brotherhood, have successfully been conducting for the past few decades. The world hates Israel for completely irrational reasons.

          “Ruthlessly killing.” It’s the same old Blood Libel, in a new form, the Jews have been accused of for a dozen centuries. Why is it so easily believed? If you knew your Bible, the answer would be obvious.

        2. Ah, Patrick. You continue to show you true colours my old friend. Which “Law” do you refer to ? in regards to the Britain handing over Jordan and Palestine to the Zionist.

          The League of Nations, you say created mandates ? Where those of Anglophilia and imperialist guile ?
          Your history is very tainted, and reeks of zionist victimhood, and definitely not the teaching of Jesus.

          Since you love to throw in bible quotes, here is one for you, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end is the way of death” Proverbs 14: 12

          I love to see people like you, get all excited about the coming war regarding “Jerusalem” but you are twisted and deceived in thinking how it going to play out. Revelations 3: 9 best describe your predicament.

          Oh, before I go and enjoy today beautiful weather, I assumed you think “Benjamin Freedman” was a bitter ,jewish nutjob. Enjoy your American evangelical delusion.

        3. Well, Ted, ole’ buddy, I’d have to say International Law is what I’m referring to. The decision of the League of Nations to have Britain create a homeland for the Jews in that portion of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of its demise.

          Now, you might say that there is no such thing as International Law, which would be fine with me, and in any event the United States never joined the League of Nations–but most of the rest of the world DID, and Britain considered itself under its command. And certainly, something had to be done about all the vast lands the Turks were no longer going to rule after the First World War. The job had to go to someone; in that portion of the Turks’ former realm, it fell to Britain. If that way is “right to a man, but is the way of death,” fine with me. Lots of laws should not be enacted, and not enforced, and plenty of lawmakers are unworthy of the role. Was this one of them? That’s not my business. When empires die, new arrangements have to be made, and will be.

          Incidentally, I am not “excited” about Armageddon. All I know is what the Bible tells me is going to happen—whether I like it or not. I am evangelical not because I am deluded, but because I believe the Bible.

          Here’s some proof that what I’m saying is true, that I know what I’m talking about. Since it is true, and I’m right, these two samples are just the tip of the iceberg. I enjoin you to investigate further, if you never knew about the Mandate:

          This article from TIME magazine ( talks about the tension between Arabs and Jews in 1929, after the British had dithered and not fulfilled their assigned mission. It does not talk about how actively Britain had been flooding Mandatory Palestine with illegal Arab immigrants, and systematically blocking Jewish migration. Still, it’s a decent overview.

          Here’s Wiki, on the subject:

          Establishment of a national home for the Jewish people[edit]

          “Zionist Rejoicings. British Mandate For Palestine Welcomed”, The Times, Monday, 26 April 1920, following conclusion of the San Remo conference.
          The preamble of the mandate document declared:
          Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[37]

        4. I have a slew of rational evidence to disprove your insane beLIEfs, Patrick, but instead, I’m going with James Tracey’s advice:

          “You can’t reason someone out of a position they weren’t reasoned into in the first place. “

        5. Too bad. I like to reason. If you could prove my evidence false, I’d change my opinion.

          Would you? I think I have proved YOUR case false, beyond doubt. But if you won’t bother to present the wonderful evidence you possess, I guess the court will have no choice but side with me.

        6. So you trust Time Magazine to properly inform you, Patrick? Of for that matter Wikipedia, started and run by Zionist Jews? Surely you are familiar with what David Rockefeller said in a secret meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1991? His speech was later made public. Here is what he told the CFR:

        7. Expulsions of Jews from host districts, cities and countries:

          554, Diocese of Clement (France)
          561, Diocese of Uzes (France)
          612, Visigoth Spain
          642, Visigoth Empire
          855, Italy
          876, Sens
          1012, Mainz
          1181, France
          1290, England
          1306, France
          1348, Switzerland
          1349, Heilbronn (Germany)
          1349, Hungary
          1388, Strasbourg
          1394, Germany
          1394, France
          1422, Austria
          1424, Fribourg & Zurich
          1426, Cologne
          1432, Savory
          1438, Mainz
          1439, Augsburg
          1446, Bavaria
          1453, Franconia
          1453, Breslau
          1454, Wurzburg
          1485, Vincenza (Italy)
          1492, Spain
          1495, Lithuania
          1497, Portugal
          1499, Germany
          1514, Strasbourg
          1519, Regensburg
          1540, Naples
          1542, Bohemia
          1550, Genoa
          1551, Bavaria
          1555, Pesaro
          1559, Austria
          1561, Prague
          1567, Wurzburg, Genoese Republic
          1569, Papal States
          1571, Brandenburg
          1582, Netherlands
          1593, Brandenburg, Austria
          1597, Cremona, Pavia & Lodi
          1614, Frankfurt
          1615, Worms
          1619, Kiev
          1649, Ukraine
          1654, Little Russia (Ukraine)
          1656, Lithuania
          1669, Oran (North Africa)
          1670, Vienna
          1712, Sandomir
          1727, Russia
          1738, Wuerttemburg
          1740, Little Russia (Ukraine)
          1744, Bohemia
          1744, Livonia
          1745, Moravia
          1753, Kovad (Lithuania)
          1761, Bordeaux
          1772, Jews deported to the Pale of Settlement (Russia)
          1775, Warsaw
          1789, Alsace
          1804, Russian villages
          1808, Russian villages and countrysides
          1815, Lubeck & Bremen
          1815, Franconia, Swabia & Bavaria
          1820, Bremes
          1843, Russian border with Austria & Prussia
          1862, Tennessee (USA), by military order of General Grant
          1866, Galatz, Romania
          1919, Bavaria (foreign born Jews)
          1938-45, Axis-Nazi controlled lands
          1948, Arab countries.

    3. I always had trouble with John Milton as an promoter of free speech.

      The Puritans, of which he was one, once they established themselves in the Bay Colony(Massachusetts, and parts of present day Maine and New Hampshire) as victims of persecution, set up a system which was grossly intolerant. Each town required individuals seeking to live there to pass a religious test of principles, and also for them to adhere to certain beliefs about the parliamentary politics back home. If you didn’t agree, you were sent packing. This helped colonize large geographical areas in Connecticut and Rhode Island, for sure. But there were also hangings for people who would not abide by the banishment and kept up their defiance.

      The fact is that 17th century England and New England straddled the middle ages and the modern age, and very often reverted to the former when faced with popular hysteria. They were winging it as far as the church was concerned, having thrown off a lot of what restricted them in their practices and having (here is the free speech part I guess) substituted the old set of dogmas for a new set which because of its varying nature, led to this ongoing war of ideas.

      Having seen first hand at Boston many academics caving in to the narrative of the Marathon Bombing by participating in public memorial pageants and also by accepting a huge memorial at MIT grossly inappropriate to the event, the proper area of discourse was mapped out by metes and bounds like a Puritan town, with its living saints those who accepted the common story and its exiles those who raised a word against it.

      When an academic tells us free speech is conditional on groupthink (“a political prize”), then he has accepted this turf-based state of affairs and is acting as an enforcer. He calls free speech a “behavior” which would confine it to the present moment and the present company. Whatever his background, he seems to feel a totalitarian state is no problem, as long as one adheres to its codes and makes sure one is always ahead of the curve, winning all the political prizes and making sure your friends have them too. Because if someone were to have a contrary opinion, that person would jeopardize the carefully constructed status quo of yes men nodding to the dogmas.

      But as you point out, the basis of much of academia today is the flow of money and the creation of obligations of students to pay it back, which can influence the entire course of their lives long after graduation. The enslavement of a large part of the young generation – with or without a military draft or community service – and the ability to cut off their ability to start families and create secure homes – is implicit in the situation. The special deals made between academia and the loaning agencies whereby many students can never get free of this obligation, will privilege some people far higher than others, beyond any merit. Choices will be possible to some but not to others, after the experience of four years of college. The dead hand of the past will lie upon them, as Jefferson warned. That is one reason why free speech matters – free speech in its original constitutional sense of vigorous, contentious debate on all subjects, particularly on those affecting public policy.

      Fish became a Milton scholar by choice, I suppose. It may be that those who rebelled against the King in New England were of Puritan stock, but eventually the reality of struggling with a harsh environment banished most of the descendants of Oxford and Cambridge dissenting dons from the tight groves of academe, into the wilderness. By the time of the Revolution, the colony was full of contentious debate and differing viewpoints. Not everyone had arrived in the New World as a Puritan, but all had to be accommodated. The tensions which built up between a Puritan past and one based on a system of aristocratic privilege broke out in civil war less than a century after the first shots at Lexington and Concord. But the country did not die of political correctness. No, in those days it was not suicidal. It was not some Plato’s Republic run by “the best and the brightest.” Whenever it is, whenever such people try to rule over it, it falters and gets into disasters (like Vietnam). The erosion has been going on for some time. The only question is when it can be stopped. There are no obvious solutions except for more free speech, in the way it is rationally understood, and not in some Pickwickian sense.

      When an academic substitutes the word “exterminate” for “extirpate” and puts it into the mouth of someone dead for three hundred forty-one years, something is afoot. It’s such an anachronism that the mistake is clearly used to give justification for something he wants out of his poet. The dead hand of the past can be reanimated, apparently, to strike down one’s enemies.

    4. Americans don’t need to be taught what free speech is,
      we are the people that constantly protect and keep alive this element of our culture and society,
      and the people that we have always fought have been establishment leaders and spokesmen,
      who are in turn expressing the wishes of their handlers and the monied interests that elected them to do their bidding

  12. Interestingly, this was also on the scoopfeed as a piece written by Jonathan Turley, while ad hominem attacking her for the content(obviously didn’t research the topic), did acknowledge this professor’s right to express herself on social media. But more importantly: doesn’t this sort of stuff happen to people when they’re “over the target”?

  13. Yep! When you are God’s Chosen People you can do what ever you want. So the other religions can put their head between their legs and kiss their beliefs goodbye. Stopped going to religious shops along time ago when I did not want the cheap lost leader and found the other items to high a price to pay morally. Man has progressed technically but regressed as a species headed back to the stone age still believing their group is better than that group over there, and that group over there, and on and on. And while we are at it, kill, rape, plunder, lie, cheat, anyone who gets in our way. So I would expect to see groups leaving their store fronts soon chanting, we’re number 1, we’re number 1, much the same as after spectators do after one of the bread n circuses provided by the controllers do for the sheep.

    Religion 101
    12 7 0 0 31
    How MANY Religions Are There? (Part Five: The Hard Numbers)
    posted by Reed Hall
    In my last blog entry, I continued to ask (or perhaps dance around) the simple question: How many religions are there in the world? Now, at last, I shall meet the question head on.
    Never mind about all of the myriad bygone religions of the remote past. We touched upon them briefly in Part One; let’s just focus instead upon asking how many religions exist in the world today.
    Never mind about the fact that many people tend to think exclusively of their own religion alone as solely and genuinely qualifying as “authentic” religion, regarding all other faiths as something less than “true” religion. The trouble is, every religion can think like this (which gets us nowhere fast). We also covered that in Part One.
    And never mind about those Christians who sometimes object to calling their religion a “religion” at all, arguing instead that Christianity is “not a ‘religion,’ but a ‘relationship’.” It’s still a religion. We covered that in Part Two.
    And never mind about those faithful who assert that their own religion is uniquely unlike all other religions because their own religion is “not just a religion, but a ‘complete way of life’.” Of course, the obvious problem here is simply that other religions are also “complete ways of life,” too. We covered this in Part Three.
    And lastly, never mind about those who tend to regard each and every single separate sect, subgroup, school, subdivision, branch, movement, or denomination within all of the major religions as if they each constituted “religions” of their own. (They don’t.) We covered all of that in Part Four. For our purposes here, counting denominations as separate standalone “religions” per se would vastly overinflate (and distort) any answer that we might give as to how many actual religions (not sects, branches, or denominations of religions) in fact exist in the contemporary world.
    So, with all of these preliminary “never minds” finally out of the way at last, we can now begin to respond directly to that seemingly simple question: how many religions are there, in the world today?
    Whenever the topic comes up in the popular press, or in informal (yet fairly informed) casual conversation, the “big five” are perhaps the most commonly mentioned: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These five highly prominent and influential global faiths are probably what most people think of first, when they set out to enumerate the major living religions of the world.
    Those who are also familiar with the ancient and venerable religious traditions native to China will be quick to add two more to the list: Confucianism and Taoism. This brings our total to seven major world faiths.
    Of course, there is also Shinto, the major native faith of Japan. And we certainly must not neglect two additional smaller but important and influential faith traditions of India: Jainism and Sikhism. Additionally worth mentioning is Zoroastrianism, today a tiny and dwindling minority religion but once the religion of the mighty Persian Empire.
    So, that brings us to a grand total of eleven major world religions (“major” whether in terms of sheer size, or in terms of sheer historical significance and cultural impact). Is that it?
    Not quite. These eleven may be widely considered to be the “major players” among the world’s global faith traditions, but by no means are they whole story when it comes to contemporary organized human religiosity.
    For instance, there are also the many new religious movements currently carving out their own modest niches on the contemporary religious scene.
    Far younger (and generally much smaller) than the long-established “mainstream” world religions, these numerous newer “alternative” or “emergent” faiths run the gamut from Baha’i (founded in the mid-1800s, with perhaps 7 million adherents) to Rastafarianism (founded in the 1930s, with about 1 million followers today) to Scientology (founded 1954 and today claiming 8 million members, although critics suggest the actual number to be as low as 100,000 or less) to Wicca (a 20th century revival or reconstruction of ancient European paganism, with perhaps 1 million followers today), to name just a few of the biggest and best-known.
    Such often-marginalized “new religions” may number in the hundreds or even thousands worldwide — depending, of course, upon how one defines, classifies, or counts each one — and bearing also in mind that a great many of them are exceedingly small and obscure, so that the total global number of adherents of such young “minority” faiths still remains quite small, compared to the much older and far larger major faiths. (One source estimates the total combined population of all such “new religions” as these at only about 100 million people, or so.)
    Even so, if we are merely concerned with counting up the actual total number of religions that currently exist in the world, then the vast diversity of all of these innumerable smaller and younger faiths increases that bottom-line total exponentially.
    And then there are still the innumerable individual indigenous religions which are scattered across the planet today. These are the many native, local, ethnic, or “tribal” folk religious traditions of the many so-called “indigenous” cultures found worldwide: the various Native American religions, the varied African traditional religions, Australian aboriginal religions, Siberian shamanists, and so forth.
    Each of the aforementioned broad regional categories also masks a vast amount of underlying diversity; many of the numerous individual tribes or other subgroups within each such broad category have quite distinct religious beliefs, practices, and traditions of their own.
    Additionally, the transatlantic African slave trade (during the New World’s colonial period) eventually resulted in syncretic Afro-Caribbean blendings of traditional indigenous West African religions with the Catholicism of the colonists. This creative blending process gave birth to such altogether new religions as Santeria (in Cuba), Candomble (in Brazil), and Voudun or Voodoo (in Haiti).
    Given the immense number of unique indigenous cultures worldwide, the number of corresponding indigenous religions (also numbering in the thousands) once again raises our cumulative grand total of currently extant religions to an increasingly uncertain (but certainly vastly higher) final number.
    As you can see, it’s complicated — perhaps too complicated to supply a single, clearcut, precise, universally agreeable, conclusive total.
    But whatever that grand total number of religions in the world might actually be, it’s clearly immense. Religious diversity is probably far more complex and variegated than most people ever imagine.

    Read more:

  14. One possibility does not seem to be on the table.

    Is Joy Karega the real deal?

    Could she be another “crisis actor” playing out a scene written by the usual script writers?

    Just sayin’.

  15. This article about Stanley Fish explains to some extent what I am getting at in this discussion.

    This Korega matter seems made to order for Stanley Fish types, just a bit too made to order. Korega herself may be the real deal but she is being used in a dialectical play.

    I understand that Professor Stanley Fish specializes in the “reader-response” form of literary criticism. That sounds like criticism based on dialectics, not objectivity.

    This article by E. Michael Jones gets at what I am trying to get at.

    Culture Wars: Skin and Discourse

    Skin and Discourse

    by E. Michael Jones

    E. Michael Jones, Ph.D. is the editor of Culture Wars. 
    This article was published in the December, 2003 issue of Culture Wars. 


    ” Which brings us back to Stanley Fish and his revolutionary friends. In order to understand why some people can say some things and others cannot say the same things without being accused of being bad people, we have to understand the revolution in literary criticism which took place during the 1970s. According to Fish, there is no objective truth to any statement. The only “truth” (a word he would not use) which a statement possesses is what the reader or listener assigns to it. Does that mean that I (a lonely graduate student at the time he was my teacher) get to determine meaning, I asked during my class with him in the ’70s. No, Fish replied, meaning is determined by “interpretive communities.” Does that mean, I continued, things like the English department at Temple University, where I was studying at the time? No, it meant elite institutions like Johns Hopkins, where Fish was teaching at the time. And how can we tell whether a university is an elite institution? Well, if Stanley Fish is teaching there. That means that, in short order, first Duke University and then the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle became elite institutions. What Stanley Fish really meant to say is that the interpretive rabbis have complete hegemony over the Torah and any other text.

    And why does Professor Fish feel this way? Because he grew up in post-World War II America during a period in which the rabbis from Hollywood and Madison Avenue began to exercise more and more draconian control over discourse of every sort. Fish is a sophist, and like all sophists he recognizes power when he sees it. ”

    “In a world governed by sophists, Thrasymachus will always have the last word when it comes to defining truth. Truth is the opinion of the powerful. The powerful cannot get into trouble for anything they say. The fact that certain people do get into trouble for what they say is simply an indication that they are not that powerful, or on their way down, probably because they offended someone with real power. Rush Limbaugh, who was discovered to have a drug problem shortly after making an insensitive remark about the race of Philadelphia’s quarterback, seems to be a case in port.

    Mel Gibson is another case in point. Why is Mel Gibson being portrayed as an anti-Semite by the Anti-Defamation League, when just about everyone — Jews and Gentile alike — who has seen his film on the last hours of Christ says that it isn’t anti-Semitic in the least? The simplest answer to the question is that the objective statements in the movie have nothing to do with the charge being leveled. The imputation of anti-Semitism is taken seriously not because of anything in se but because of the power of the man leveling the charge. Abe Foxman is powerful. Truth, as Thrasymachus said, is the opinion of the powerful. Hence, Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite, no matter how many Jews or Christians he gets to see his movie. ”

    “By now it should be obvious that there is no defense against the charge. The charge is true if the person making it is more powerful than the person who is accused. There is no other operative definition of discourse as it is practiced today. To say there is involves an appeal to the world of objective fact, which the powerful hold in contempt.”

  16. I wrote above about the practice in Puritan Boston of hanging Quakers who would not stay banished from the Bay Colony, which had its own brand of correctness and has left its descendants with tendencies to invoke it in order to exercise power over the spirits and words of those in academia, both faculty and students.

    Today’s punishment in the US is not yet hanging or imprisonment, merely expulsion (in spite of any traditions of academic professional independence).

    Some advocate a society which jails those who deny certain doctrines or wish to revise certain framings of historical or quasi-historical events. The justification for this in Central Europe was to punish people who had invaded other countries and snatched their inhabitants into their death camps. It was feared that allowing people to deny these crimes would lead to more of them.

    But the justification today is prophylactic, they say, at least in the US. Europe and Canada are seen as the civilized gold standard, and America as a howling wilderness with dirty water not just in abandoned cities. It is also to keep the flow of resources running in certain directions and not others. It cannot be justified on constitutional grounds in the United States, so a harking back to pre-Revolutionary times is necessary to establish how venerable a tradition the punishment of free speech has been.

    Here is a fine quote from a Quaker of 17th century Boston who escaped the hangman’s noose in the nick of time:

    “Do not think to weary out the living God by taking away the lives of his servants.” Wedlock Christisin. He pointed out that since he is God, he can raise up ten more for every one that you take. He is all about truth, you see. And nobody mocks him for long.

  17. Beliefs

    By T. C. Fry

    Beliefs will make you a slave. Beliefs are inherently wrong and imprison us to the degree that we give them loyalty. That which is true and proper to our lives is known and does not have to be believed. If you believe, you believe without proof. Truth always serves us.

    Belief is a different animal altogether. Belief demands we serve it, not the other way around. This camouflages its basic character as an exploitive and enslaving device. The nature of every belief system is to demand acceptance and obedience. Not only does it tend to suppress and destroy differing belief systems, forcing, if it can, all to adopt its concepts, but it also seeks to suppress the truth as well.

    Most people are in love with their beliefs to the exclusion of the striking and self-evident truths in their lives. By their very nature, all belief systems are false and inhuman. Simply, the truth does not have to be believed. Truth is always evident and easy to know, especially that which is relevant to ourselves and our environment.

    All belief systems are concocted in the minds of men and women. While virtually everyone disbelieves every system but their own, in some areas, notably so-called medical science, the mass of people accept it as above question or reproach.

    We do not have to believe the truth. Truth is verifiable. It can be known. Beliefs are not verifiable but are absurdly easy to disprove. The truth always stays around regardless.

    All the belief in the world does not change one truth! For instance, it was only a few hundred years ago that everyone believed the earth to be flat. For uttering the heresy that the earth was round, the Catholic Church burned scientists of the time at the stake.

    But all the beliefs notwithstanding, the earth was not thereby flattened a bit. To insist that your beliefs are true is sheer arrogance and nonsense. Please do not confuse beliefs with theories. Theories are temporary while beliefs have a habit of being final.

    Beliefs are really illusions and delusions. It is said that the hardest person in the world to face is yourself. Likewise, most in our world are the victims of deep-seated beliefs and refuse to face the fact that they are enslaved and exploited by and through them.

    Mental laziness is exemplified in our refusal to face up to the fact that we are easily exploited by beliefs we accept uncritically, which have usually been implanted in us when we were young and impressionable. It is mental laziness when we refuse to take steps to discover the truth that would cast off the shackles of beliefs or slavery. Thus, by default, we continue our slavish, harmful and deleterious ways, affecting not only ourselves but those with whom we’re associated.

    1. The Zionists have a long list of terrorist activities around the world:
      1982 ” massacre of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps was committed. Where over 2,500 Palestinian women, children and elderly people were slaughtered in cold blood. Even the Israeli high court held a number of the Israeli military officers, including Sharon, responsible.

      1. Remember that it was the Christian Phalangists that wen to to murder the Palestinian refugees in the Shantilla refugee camp. Apparently the Christians had some score settling issue with the Palestinians that enticed them to commit this crime. Israel was found guilty of not intervening strongly enough to prevent this massacre.

        1. That event, in which Israeli guards watched passively, began to make me question the good intentions of Israel and their right to some moral high ground in the world. I had been aware of the My Lai incident, and how individuals could make a difference. Also, who has not been taught that the Nuremberg trials were about moral responsibility.

          What were the Israelis doing involved in Lebanon? The Phalangists, who did the murders, were Israeli allies and the IDF ordered them to “clear the PLO out of the camp”. Order had broken down in Beirut, and the IDF was present, moving through the area. But they did give an order, didn’t they? The resulting deaths of innocents might have been anticipated, since there had been a recent assassination and the Phalangists were out for revenge. The fact that the people being killed had already been sent packing from their own land – well it would be like an Indian reservation being attacked by enemies and having the US cavalry say they didn’t know the men they ordered into it would go so far.

          It just left me with the feeling the Israelis were just as cruel as anyone else and had zero moral superiority, for all their self-advertisement. It’s not that hard to be good to your own. The true test is whether you can behave with justice towards your rivals and your enemies. To me that determines whether you have the qualities of leadership that can create a better society.

          I note with interest on reading a dialogue about that day in 1982 – Don McCullin, the famous war photographer, was present. Heavy. To him it was distressing that the Phalangist who was killing an old lady who pleaded with him not to kill her was himself wearing a crucifix. But remember, he was following orders – sort of.

        2. Typical Zionist response to any party who whistelbows on Israeli crimes,
          The Israelis are about as innocent in this as the Neocons in Washington who use terrorist groups to accomplish their crimes in secret, the Israelis provide direct aid and support for ISIS-

        3. “What were the Israelis doing involved in Lebanon?”

          The PLO had essentially taken over Lebanon. The land beneath Beirut had been hollowed out like swiss cheese, with tunnels. These tunnels were filled with arms. Russian arms. The Israelis could not believe the size of the arsenal. It was an existential requirement for Israel to expel Arafat’s army from Lebanon,

          One must keep in mind the nightmare PLO terrorism represented at that time. And also after that. One must remember Leon Klinghoffer.

          Israel won that war, and Arafat’s murderers were expelled from Lebanon (they found a haven in Tunisia), which reduced the immediacy of the existential threat to Israel, but it didn’t stop the murders; Klinghoffer was murdered three years later.

          What Israel had gone through in the years leading up to 1982 was extremely traumatic. No one who lives in quietness can imagine what constant terrorism surrounding one does to one’s soul. I imagine that had something to do with Sharon’s heartlessness when he allowed another of the PLO’s enemies to take a revenge that turned out to be excessive.

          Then again, war is Hell. Bad things happen in war, Unconscionable things. But then, Israel didn’t start it. The PLO did. And the PLO had acquired the means to destroy Israel, and fully intended to use it.

          All the fashionable hatred of Israel we see the world reveling in today, all the fashionable sympathy for “the Palestinians,” all the righteous moral superiority of campus idiots who think they are on the high ground when advocating a boycott of Israel’s economy, is informed by none of this backdrop. The PLO, and Hamas, to this day uses the phrase “from the River to the Sea” to describe the future–a future with no Israel.

          The evil men ruling Israel allowed Arafat and his murderers to leave Tunis, and actually invited them to relocate in the lands Israel won from Egypt and Jordan in the Six Day War, with America’s military actually training them in more effective militancy, arming them to boot. In exchange for “peace.” What they got instead was lots more terrorism. Very coordinated terrorism.

          I think it would make me feel like Charles Bronson in Death Wish, were I Israel.

        4. The only way the death of Leon Klinghoffer can justify the inaction of Israel went it sent Phalangists into a refugee camp and they began killing innocent women and children under their eyes (there were IDF witnesses) is something out the Bronze Age Bible, where this kind of thing was scripturally justified. It also sounds like the campaign platform of Donald Trump who talks about wiping out the entire families of terrorists.

          Frankly, I’d have thought the most civilized had come farther than that, but you can always choose to revert to more primitive justifications for what you do. That was basically my point – you might get what you want out of it, but nobody else should concede to you the moral high ground or the ability to teach you. That the Phalangists are Christian is an instance of how meaningless the actual teaching of that religion seems to have been for the. Sometimes however it is important to chuck whatever text you are going by and simply find within yourself human decency.

          My Lai was justified by people stating that they had it up to here with booby traps and they did not know who was friend or foe. So what? When it came to killing unarmed elderly, children, etc. — it was still a crime against humanity, as was Sabra and Shatila.

        5. First, I pointed out that Klinghoffer was murdered three years after the PLO was banished to Tunisia. I said it was evidence that even though Israel had gotten out of the frying pan by getting Arafat out of Lebanon, it landed in the fire anyway. The PLO’s arsenal might have been confiscated, and its platform on Israel’s borders might have been removed, but they learned that the world’s press could always be counted upon to side with the monsters against their victims–when Israel is the victim.

          My second point was that it is impossible to know what being subject to constant terrorism does to the mind. I know that Arafat was the most evil person his victims had encountered since WWII, and they were traumatized, which is why Israel was compelled to extract the dirty little man from his castle.

          I also said that what happened in that refugee camp was an example of war being Hell, and unconscionable. I don’t justify it, but I understand how these things can happen. You, yourself, just the other day, related the trauma your mother in law endured in WWII; her mind was shattered, and she never was the same again. So you have personal experience with this phenomenon. I only know it from historical research. Which tells me that you should know my point is true better than I do.

  18. The National Interest web page, an important CIA foreign policy voice, also attacked the professor. Below is my comment. They quickly hid the attacking article.

    folktruther • 5 days ago

    Faithful to its Republican heritage, the National Interest is in favor of firing anyone who tells the truth which subverts the untruth of American power and its media. Especially if they are non-White and uppity.
    Anti-Zionism is quite different from anti-Semitism, supported by many Jews, including myself. Israel is a apartheid power, and should be singled out instead of supported by US power.
    There is abundant evidence that ISIL was supported by US and Israel, an Israeli colonel being captured leading ISIL troops, and both US and Israel economically supporting ISIL while Proclaiming they were opposing it.
    US and the West is largely ruled by an oligarchy of bankers, mostly non-Jews but including a large fraction of Jews as well . I think some of Dr Karega’s reported assertions are untrue, but the media is so corrupt that one cannot rely on it to report them honestly. In any case, they could not possibly be as untrue as the usual media bullshit.

    5 △ ▽


    Share ›

    1. I think you are making a mistake by taking up the term “anti-semitic,” this term was created by the Zionist/Jews as a kind of “mind control,” as a shield against Zionist crimes, to use it is to fall into the Zionist trap of giving meaning to a term that was created to stifle debate, a creation of a “monster” that no one wants to be known by (“ANTISEMITE!” Askenazis are not semites),
      the term is a result of Jewish think tanks creating a specialized language that asserts their militant/subversive/criminal pursuit of the conquest of their host nations

  19. The National Interest web page, an important foreign policy voice associated with the CIA, also attacked the professor. I defended her but my reprinted comment was not published, the usual case recently on this blog.

  20. It looks like Oberlin may be changing its stance on Prof. Karega, according to “Inside Higher Ed”:

    …after officials met with “third party groups, including the Jewish Federation of Cleveland, the Cleveland Hillel Foundation and the Anti-Defamation League.”

    But wait – why is there only a dark dark fuzzy photo of her available? Only this can be found at google images, at media sites, on Oberlin’s website, and on her facebook page. And why does she not have a single article uploaded at

    Is there something odd about Joy Karega?

    1. These are unusual features. Not everyone uses As you know there are other ways of confirming Karega’s career background, of course, such as the dissertation, professional affiliations, conference presentations, and so on. Apparently she recently finished her graduate work at Louisville, and this institution plus her grad committee could also confirm her presence in a program of study.

      For example, here is the abstract of the dissertation:

      1. So why don’t we take this same expert advice from personal experience that James just displayed above and apply that to Sandy hook? Anyone?

        You see how James had processes that were likely unknown to us lay people about how to confirm employment, her dissertation, grad school, etc? Why can’t we do tha t with Newton?

        1. “Unknown to us lay people”

          Really? I found it myself on google. No unknown processes or expert advice needed.

    2. No other pics of her on her FB page and no Facebook friends. The page has an entry of a picture of a guitar dated 2014. I believe anything could be a PSYOPS.

      1. Here’s her last Facebook post:

        Joy Karega
        March 5 at 9:08am •

        I will no longer be making any statements concerning my situation at Oberlin. We have reached a point where it is time for me to defer to my legal counsel. And I gladly do so. Those of you who know me know that I have been and will continue to be firm in my convictions and resolve. I will still receive Facebook messages here. The messages of love and support have been overwhelming. Keep those coming. I read them all. AND I also read the messages filled with slurs, harassment, and threats too. Those messages have been overwhelming as well. Keep those coming too. I catalog and save them. Right along with the emails and phone messages. Again, I remain firm in my convictions and resolve.

        1. “AND I also read the messages filled with slurs, harassment, and threats too.”

          Too / also redundant.

        2. This Professor rocks,
          a true American Hero,
          the tide is turning,
          and the Zionist takeover of the US Government is crumbling,
          time for fear and trembling for the traitors in our government that are being exposed,
          I’m sure there will be a mass exodus of criminals fleeing to Israel,
          which is the safe haven for Zionist/Israeli criminals and spies, like Marc Rich, who Clinton pardoned, receiving huge cash sums for doing so (one of many)

  21. I have been an active participant in the conversation here at MHB, practically from its start. It has been a congenial space. I have made friends here. We talk about conspiracies, and learn from each other. Investigate. Add to the body of knowledge.

    Of late, unfortunately, it has become a hotbed of open Jew-hatred. In the past, there was an undercurrent of that, as one expects when dealing with conspiracy investigators, but it was not a prominent feature of the site.

    We have a new presence amongst, a Mr. Smith, in recent days, who typifies this recent trend. I suspect that he’s Langley. MHB is in the crosshairs, is how I read it. Making this place a giant hate-fest is a great ploy. It certainly will drive people like me away. That day is drawing close.

    I don’t know if James sees what’s happening. These Jew-haters are taking over the place. It’s his place. It’s his choice.

    1. I’m CIA… wow, that’s rich! Everybody and his uncle knows that the CIA works hand-in-hand with the Israeli Mossad, as well as the Jew-controlled MSM. They are joined at the hip.

      I’m sorry if my arrival here has made life unpleasant for you, Patrick, but I’m not here to “chat amiably” like you apparently are. I’m here to reveal some hard and bitter facts. These are bitter pills for everyone to swallow, but eventually we all had to learn that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny didn’t really exist. It’s a process called maturing into adulthood. I suggest you get on the bandwagon.

    2. You are taking the usual approach that suggests any discussion of the eternal victims is somehow “hatred” unless discussed in the most glowing terms. We have all been to that rodeo many times. It is a tried and true method on many low brow type forums. It probably won’t fly here. Take another approach and try discussion. It works well.

      It is about the professor and the forces arrayed against her, those that would deny her free speech, something that seems anathema to you unless it deals with your brand of bible thumping.

      The professor will now feel the full force of the Sanhedrin and the mafia. It is a tried and proven method. It is difficult to discuss this without mentioning your favorite people. Have you ever considered a forum where this is not allowed such as the freepers or Drudge.

      1. “You are taking the usual approach that suggests any discussion of the eternal victims is somehow “hatred” unless discussed in the most glowing terms. ”

        I do not agree with all you say, Dub, but I do recognize some truth in that statement.

        There can be no objective discussion of the “eternal victims” not even from alternative bible exegesis other than the “discussion” offered by the overwhelmingly most frequent user of the H word in this thread.

      2. “You are taking the usual approach that suggests any discussion of the eternal victims is somehow “hatred” unless discussed in the most glowing terms.”

        No, I’m not. I am extremely harsh, here and everywhere, concerning Israel’s leadership, which is Shabbatean, and therefore perfectly evil. I have never written differently.

        “It is about the professor and the forces arrayed against her, those that would deny her free speech…”

        No, it is not. It is about schools who betray their code. No one has a “right” to teach college courses. Colleges sell something. Parents purchase that “something.” It is a question of “bait and switch.” You, Mr. Mick from Dublin, may well agree with this loony negress in her hatred of Jews. Lots of people around here do, apparently. But is that what college is supposed to be? She’s an English teacher. She’s obviously an obsessive on a topic entirely unrelated to English composition, so much so that she wants everyone to listen to her opinions. Do you honestly believe that if I were her student, and submitted to her the writings you have read from me, the she would score them honestly? No one can accuse my writings of being anything less than skilled.

        She is an ideologue. She should not have been hired. English teachers are not hired to be ideologues. Parents don’t bankrupt themselves, in tensionally, to have people like that poison the minds of their children. She can speak as freely as she wants. She just doesn’t have a right to be paid to do it, under cover of false pretenses.

        “…something that seems anathema to you unless it deals with your brand of bible thumping.”

        Again, wrong. Truth is truth. Falsity is falsity. No “branding” required.

        “The professor will now feel the full force of the Sanhedrin…”

        Since no such thing has existed for 2,000 years, she has little to fear about that, even if she lived in Israel.

        “…and the mafia.”

        Now, this is a new twist. What have you heard, Mick? Are the Italians on the job? Who put out the contract on her? Do tell.

        “…It is difficult to discuss this without mentioning your favorite people.”

        I can see why, Mick. You can’t, after all, find a way to a Swiss connection here, although I’d like it if you did; it bothers me that they have gotten away from the gold standard, and seem to be capitulation to the nightmare of the EU in ways that deeply pain me. Perhaps you have some insight. My second most favorite people, it should be obvious, are native Hawaiians, but again, I can’t see the connection. Am I missing something? Maybe you were thinking of the Irish, because of my name, but still, I can’t glean your meaning.

        “Have you ever considered a forum where this is not allowed such as the freepers or Drudge.”

        Yep, you lost me. What are you talking about?

        1. The point is Patrick, this discussion is of itself probably beyond your grasp. You are here to engage in simplistic analysis, keep the discussion at a boringly low level and discourage intelligent readers. You are a very rare type that can be counted on to arrive at the wrong conclusion the majority of the time. You are very shallow, misinformed and it is up for grabs if this in unintentional are part of a design.

  22. Let’s start at the top, the last column having grown too long.

    Replying to Toni.

    Hamas is NOT a “false political organization,” although it indeed started out as a project to divert Arafat’s supporters. I am well aware that it was created by Israel, for the purposes you mention, but it is today quite real. It is a monster that Israel does not have control of. As always, these things are far too complex for this forum; either one knows far too much or far too little. We don’t know which we are talking to, when writing these remarks at MHB. YOU, of course, I know to be one I can trust to know plenty enough to know what I’m talking about, whether you agree with my assessment or not. It’s all the other listeners I have doubts about. (I like you, incidentally, even when you don’t agree with me.)

    You say:

    Quoting Mr. Smith now, quoting Henry Makow, (as you’ve undoubtedly read): [Indeed, I have]

    “You should be aware that Hamas was deliberately created and managed BY ISRAEL. Its purpose initially was disband Yasser Arafat’s PLO, which was a real thorn in the side of the Israelis. Now it serves the function of being the “bogeyman on call”.

    I repeat: Israel no longer has control over it. It is a Frankenstein’s monster. The PLO was evil, but it was not Islamic. Hamas draws its energy from the Moslem Brotherhood, which is Islamist. I don’t know how deep the evil of Israel’s creation of Hamas goes (I know that Israel’s leadership is bottomless in its evil), but I DO hold as a working theory that they thought a “religious” competitor to Arafat’s gang of murderers would create a manageable operation. Then Sharon handed Gaza over to the people who live there, abandoning the place. Hamas was quickly voted in as its rulers. Israel has absolutely no presence in Gaza. It is now out of control.

    You quote Henry Makow:

    “undermining the peace process has always been the real target of Hamas and has played into the political ambitions of Likud. Every time Israeli and Palestinian negotiators appeared ready to take a major step forward achieving peace, an act of Hamas terrorism has scuttled the peace process and pushed the two sides apart.”

    The leadership of Israel has been purely evil from the founding of the State. Stipulated. But the truth is, if the Arabs of Gaza were to agree that Israel has a right to exist, and ask for Israel’s help in becoming a Singapore-on-the Med, Israel would in fact do it. Of course, this will not happen. There is no solution to this problem.

    I’m sorry you hear hate in my voice, Toni. I really do chat amiably, if occasionally rancorously.

    Since I see the times we live in through a Biblical lens, I see the situation Israel represents from a distance. Clinically. Anthropologically. I have been there, of course, so I know that Israel is a normal country very much like our own; the people live lives just lie ours. Except that terrorism truly looms, in a way that only the denizens of the slum districts of cities like Chicago and Los Angeles ever experience. I know a woman who now lives here, whose husband insisted on driving a route that Arab murderers routinely accosted Israelis on, out of defiance. She respected his defiance, in principle, but she was always afraid for her life, and that of her children, and hated having to endure that.

    The Bible is quite clear about what will eventuate. It is going get a lot worse. Israel’s leaders are not going to become good, but Israel’s people are not bad. Just like America.

      1. Yes, Mr. Smith. Exactly the way these people are representative of the Americans:

        ADVISORY WARNING: you will see very ugly Americans if you click on the link. You might never get the stench out of your nostrils. Kind of like listening to Mr. Langley, er, Smith, express his hate.

        I think I need a shower after interacting with this fellow too many times today. I’d prefer these disgusting rappers, come to think about it.

        1. Patrick, you would prefer listening to those disgusting rappers that listening to me? I hope you understand that is a MASSIVE insult! All I am doing is presenting you with the TRUTH. Evidently you have a a lot of problems with the truth. It has nothing at all to do with me.

          Now, I would suggest that you kick back and listen to the following, instead of “Uncle Tuna” (who is not an American but someone who should be deported back to Africa).

        2. My point of course is that you did not present a representative example of the people of the country you despise; you wish to convince yourself that you are right to despise it, however you can. I showed you how absurd is your “proof.”

        3. Patrick, read my latest comment(s). I AM showing you a representative sample of the Israeli population. If this isn’t sufficient for you, I can provide even more. I don’t know what it is going to take, however, for you to understand that the Jews are the anti-Christ, and that no Christian should ever be supporting “doers of iniquity”, like I imagine all evangelical Christians like you do.

          Confer Matt 7:15-23, John 3:19-21, Ephesians 5:10-12, 2 Corinthians 6:14,15 if you don’t believe me.

        4. Patrick never lets the facts get in the way of his opinions. 🙂

          Patty you should consider just moving to Israel and getting it over with.

          I suspect you are Langley Patrick, not Smith, and your goal is to lower the vibration of discussion to drive away those with an I.Q. over room temperature.

        5. With Patty, anybody who disagrees with him is hating. The CIA is spending 40% of it’s budget now on media campaigns. I would say Patty and Foilker are big fails, way too transparent. They need to be sent back to the home office for more training.

        6. This is my last reply in this last column cage–Mr. Smith, go to the top of the page (after the new endless wait for moderation clearance).

          Mick, you prove that you have nothing to do with Dublin when you call me “Patty.” It’s “Paddy.” Unless you’re calling me a girl–and if that’s your taunt, look at my picture; it’s been many a long year since that kind of jibe would bother me.

          Yes, Mick. Everyone knows about the CIA. What’s your point? They hire people like Mr. Smith to disrupt places like MHB. That’s MY point, not yours.

          Until recently, MHB was not a hate-fest. But after years of clean living, suddenly the place is full of open, cheerful, enthusiastic Jew-haters, who all are constantly chit-chating one to another about their obsession. This sudden development cannot be a coincidence.

          Truth be told, I suspect that the newcomers who hate the Jews so fulsomely really DON’T. It’s just a way to destroy the goodness we have enjoyed, for the paycheck. Their hatred is exactly as sincere as that of the Move On Dot Org people last night in Chicago, who only succeeded in making Donald Trump even more popular. They don’t really care about the content of their hired messaging, so long as the check they were handed cashes.

          Then again, plenty of people really DO hate the Jews, and would act that way for free. That, too, must be taken into account.

        7. Evidently Patrick thought that my previous video was not at all representative of typical Jewish Israeli attitudes toward Christians. Shall we have a further look? We won’t have to look very far to see that this rampant all over Israel.

          I can produce much more of the same. My point is that you will NEVER see these videos like this shown in the Jew-controlled mainstream media here in the States. And it’s small wonder that will never see them, because they have an awful lot to hide from us. Not just about typical Israeli attitudes toward Christians, but all manner of other serious problems caused directly or indirectly by Jews.

    1. I guess all of the end times prophesies have not come true in our era after all, then. Wow. I wonder how in this guy’s surrealistic model they ever will?

      Zechariah 12, for instance. Hosea 5:15-6:2. Revelation 7:4-8.

      I was under the impression that God had regathered them to their ancestral homeland already, from North, South, East and West, just as predicted. When will that actually happen, if this guy is right?

      I guess it’s a sheer coincidence then that we are poised on the verge of a world government, and a cashless society where no one will be able to buy or sell without taking a mark. A false alarm. It’s all going to happen some time in what can only be a distant future.

      Still, it DOES look an awful lot like Revelation is coming true in our time, along with all the rest of the Last Days scriptures. I think I’ll stick to the Bible, and consider what it says about false prophets: test them. I find this one wanting.

      1. There are 2 things I know. Not too many years ago at 54 I had to throw out all I knew or thought I knew when I came to realize everything I learned had been a lie. Then I came to learn that the more I learn I realize how much I DON’T know.
        So I humbly ask you to pray for me that I will come to know all the truth, knowledge and wisdom that you have.

        1. Oh, don’t pray that. I learn new things every day. And I often find that everything I thought I knew about a subject is wrong. Which means that tomorrow, much of what I think I know today on that topic will have to be walked away from. So you don’t want to pray to get stuck with what I think is true today; I might have left it behind tomorrow, and we would disagree about those ideas, were we to meet.

          Keep on keeping’ on, elfmom, yourself. Don’t rely on me.

Comments are closed.