In Defense of Unconventional Thoughts: The Case of Joy Karega

Jim Fetzer

karegaAn article, “Changing Course on Anti-Semitic Remarks”, Inside Higher Education (7 March 2016), reports that Oberlin has altered its stance regarding comments made by Assistant Professor, Joy Karega, on her Facebook page, where she wrote that ISIS was the creation of US and Israeli intelligence and that they were behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. 

She also expressed her agreement with Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam that Zionists and Israeli Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks.  “In addition to those falsehoods, Karena shared an image of Jacob Rothschild with the caption, “We own your news, the media, your oil and your government”. Here are the most important paragraphs there from:




Since these beliefs are rather widely held among those who have actually studied the origins of ISIS or the events of 9/11, not to mention the immense influence exerted over the US government by AIPAC and interests related to the Rothschild banking empire, one has to speculate over how claims that appear to be true could possibly be known to be false.


When Stephen Francis and I began planning our 2nd conference on Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry?, where we had intended to focus on the dismissal of Associate Professor James Tracy from Florida Atlantic University, therefore, I decided to invite Joy to speak about her experience at Oberlin, where the issues appear to be very closely related. 

Freedom of Speech

In both instances, faculty members were being reprimanded for expressing their personal opinions, not in the classroom with their students, but in their outside activities: on his blog at, in the case of James Tracy; and on her Facebook page (which may no longer exist), in the case of Joy Karega. That struck me as highly problematical.

In addition, in both instances, the journal, Forward: News that Matters to American Jewspublished slashing attacks upon them, well reflected by their respective titles,“Time to Crack Down on ‘[Sandy Hook] Truthers’ who tarnish the name of Noah Pozner” (14 December 2015) and “Inside the twisted, anti-Semitic mind of Oberlin Professor Joy Karena” (3 March 2016).

A further similarity appears to me to be that, in both cases, the rationale for censoring them has no rational or moral foundation. Faculty never speak for institutions; that prerogative belongs exclusively to the administration. That a scholar has an academic position does not mean that he has thereby abandoned his rights as a citizen to exercise freedom of speech.

And the evidence that Sandy Hook Elementary School had been closed since 2008 and that there were no children there for Adam Lanza to have shot is overwhelming. We even have the FEMA manual for the two day exercise, with a rehearsal on the 13th, going LIVE on the 14th, which I would include as Appendix A in NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015).

But administrators have shown an aversion to actually doing the research necessary to figure out who is right and who is wrong in cases of this kind. Even when I made the book available to the public for free as a pdf, there has not been the least indication that anyone in authority at Florida Atlantic University bothered to read the book. They seem impervious to evidence.

Letter to the President of Oberlin

Insofar as I have spoken out repeatedly about the abuses to which James Tracy has been subjected, including many video presentations and posts here at, I wanted to take a stand in support of Joy Karega. The most direct course would be to write to Oberlin’s President, who happens to be a J.D. rather than a Ph.D. So I sent the following email:


Attachments11:03 PM (20 hours ago)


to Marvin.KrislovFerd.ProtzmanJane.MathisonJennifer.Bradf.Ginny.ODell
Marvin Krislov, J.D.

Office of the President
Oberlin College

Dear President Krislov,
As it happens, I have invited Joy Karega to speak at a conference on 
Academic Freedom that I am organizing with Stephen Francis to address 
the cases of your faculty member and of James Tracy, who was fired from 
Florida Atlantic University. This will be our second conference on this subject, 
where the first is archived at
As a graduate of another fine undergraduate institution, Princeton
University, I am terribly disturbed that a faculty member at Oberlin would be
for unconventional thinking, when liberal arts institutions are committed
to exploring alternative thoughts, hypotheses and theories, without political 
constraint. I am apprehensive that Joy’s case illustrates the extent to which 
“political correctness” has undermined that ideal.
As it happens, I share many of the views for which she is being evaluated, 
including about ISIS and the Charlie Hebdo attack. (See my article, “How 
we know that ISIS was ‘Made in the USA'”, IRAN REVIEW, and at the
 Left Forum earlier this year.) I have also endorsed observations by 
Minister Farrakhan on 9/11, as you will find here:
Please know that I would be willing to travel to Oberlin at my own expense 
to address these issues on your campus with the administration, the faculty 
and your students. Surely we cannot promote the exercise of reason and 
rationality if we are not open to hearing the evidence on both sides, which 
is a fundamental desideratum of scientific and objective inquiry.
With appreciation for your consideration, I am
Yours truly,
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth

P.S. You are welcome to share my thoughts with the members of Oberlin’s 

Board of Trustees.


Contemplating submitting an Op/Ed piece to the Oberlin student paper, I came across an article about Joy in The Oberlin Review, to which no reply has been posted. Since it would be most appropriate for them to publish a rebuttal, I have submitted this in my efforts to get Oberlin back on course:

In Defense of Unconventional Thoughts

by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

Allegations of anti-Semitism for any perceived slight against Israel have become commonplace. Anti-Semitism entails dismissing the worth or value of a person or of their opinions on the basis of their religion or ethnic origin. It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies and actions of the government of Israel, which include the historic abuse of the Palestinian people and the systematic deprivation of their homeland.

The definition cited here, which encompasses “the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions”, begs the question by taking for granted that those views are false and indefensible.  Would it be “anti-Semitic”, for example, to suggest that Jews run Hollywood? Joel Stein not only published about it in the LA TIMES but proved it.

Check it out. “Who runs Hollywood? C’mon” (19 December 2008). does that mean Joel Stein is anti-Semitic? To the best of my knowledge, not a peep of protest was raised when it was published, because everyone in Hollywood knew that it was true. He listed all the studio producers as evidence. Do a search on-line. Does truth matter? Where do we draw the line between truths about people and anti-Semitism?

Joy’s case bothers me tremendously because irrelevant considerations are being allowed to influence the determination of truth about politically significant issues. As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, for example, I know that 9/11 was brought to us by the CIA, the Neocons in the Department of Defense and the Mossad. Does truth matter in this case? Can we conclude it must be false because we don’t like it?

I spent 35 years offering course in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning. I am therefore far amore aware that degrees of subjective conviction often diverge from measures of evidential support, which can be evaluated on the basis of objective criteria within the domain of deductive and inductive logic, where the basic principle of scientific reasoning is knowns as “inference to the best explanation”.

When comparing alternative hypotheses or theories, say, h1 and h2, we need to compare the probability of the available evidence, e, if they were true (not jointly, of course, but independently). The hypothesis or theory that confirms the higher probability upon the evidence is the more likely to be true, making it the preferable hypothesis. When the evidence has settled down, the preferable hypothesis is acceptable.

Acceptance-as-true in scientific contexts is both tentative and fallible, where acquiring new hypotheses or new evidence may dictate rejecting hypotheses we previously accepted, accepting hypotheses we previously rejected, and leaving others in suspense. And that standard should be applied across the board to every important historical issue, especially those that have significant political ramifications.

Suppose, for example, that there had been 236 references to 6,000,000 Jews in dire straits or fear of loss of their lives in the international press before the Nuremberg Tribunals beginning as early as 1890. That would mean that that number in relation to allegations of deaths in concentration camps during World War II  was almost certainly not based on empirical data derived from records of death at those camps. 

In fact, the International Committee of the Red Cross was visiting those camps and keeping meticulous records of the names, ages, sexes, religion and national origin of those who died while incarcerated. And suppose that none were recorded as having died from being put to death in gas chambers. Would it be anti-Semitic if that data turned out to be true? It contradicts the official narrative, but is it anti-Semitic?

I use the example of the Holocaust because, after I participated in a conference on Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry?, in which JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust were used as examples of subjects that might be ruled “off limits” for academic inquiry, I was dumbfounded to discover that what we are told in history books and by historical authorities cannot withstand critical scrutiny. It just isn’t true.

The conference is archived at And a summary of my research can be found at “The Holocaust Narrative: Politics trumps Science”. But my conclusions are advanced in the tentative and fallible fashion of science. Even though my findings are supported by the evidence I cite, there could be more evidence of which I am unaware.

Indeed, in research I have done since publishing that piece, I have discovered that Fred Leuchter, who was an expert on gas chambers, testified during the second trial of Ernst Zundel in detail why the alleged facilities at those camps could not possibly have functioned for the purpose proclaimed. Don’t take my word for it. Read it for yourself in “The Zundel Trials: 1984 and 1988” by Robert Fourisson. 

I cite the Holocaust because it has assumed a status that seemingly defies investigation. My attitude, by contrast, has always been that, if the Holocaust were real, then research would confirm it; and if it was not, then the world deserves to know. The evidence supports that what we have been told is untrue, but we are supposed to believe it anyway because, to do otherwise–to deny it–would be “anti-Semitic”.

I also edited the first book from Scholars, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), a title that fits whether 19 Islamic terrorists attacked American under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan or not. Indeed, the truth appears to be far more complex and disturbing, as I have mentioned above. My second book on 9/11 is about to appear, which offers more extensive and detailed proof that the first was on the mark.

These are books that, like those I have published on JFK, bring together experts across a variety of disciplines to ascertain the truth about these complex and controversial events, where the government has an interest in promoting predetermined conclusions, the reasons for which become apparent the more you learn about them.  For a summary, see, for example, “9/11: The Who, the How and the Why”.

And when it comes to ISIS and the Charlie Hebdo attack, I think Joy is also on the right track. (See my article, “How we know that ISIS was ‘Made in the USA'”, IRAN REVIEW, and my presentation at the Left Forum earlier this year.) I, like her, have also endorsed observations by Minister Farrakhan on 9/11, as you will find on-line at the following link: 

As a graduate of another fine undergraduate institution, Princeton University, I am terribly disturbed that she as a faculty member at Oberlin would be chastised for unconventional thinking, when liberal arts institutions are committed to exploring alternative hypotheses and theories, without political constraint. Joy’s case, I am afraid, illustrates the extent to which “political correctness” has undermined that ideal.

Her termination would be Oberlin’s loss, alas. Those of us who have studied these questions know that her opinions are far closer to the truth than those of her critics. We cannot promote the exercise of reason and rationality if we are not open to hearing the evidence on both sides, which is a fundamental desideratum of scientific and objective inquiry. The point of a liberal education seems to have been lost.

 James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

McKnight Professor Emeritus                                                      

University of Minnesota Duluth              


27 thoughts on “In Defense of Unconventional Thoughts: The Case of Joy Karega”

  1. Excellent article, its high time citizens supported scholars for truth and end this violation against brave academics who are being attacked by special interests groups

  2. Would be very encouraging to see the students of our institutes of higher learning (“HireLearning” as one wit called them) become more vocal about such issues, not to mention the termination of professors and academics who dare challenge the corporate media’s death-grip on news and information.

    There really needs to be an opposition against the tyranny of the university thought police.

  3. Dr. Sebi, a holistic herbalist, made a positive impact on thousands of lives. He was Detained for carrying between $30,000-$50,000 at the airport and went to court for claims of money laundering. The details given from the authorities to the family was that he developed health issues while in custody and was administered hospital medication. Authorities gave info to family that he died of pneumonia complications.


    1. Is this quote even close to accurate? From the Begin Center Diary, May 27, 2009:

      Correcting A Misquotation Reputedly By Menachem Begin
      This past week, the Begin Center received this request for information:

      Can you please help me with this?

      This quote

      “Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”

      is attributed to Begin and it is all over the web.

      Do you know where it came from?

      This was our reply:

      Dear S_____,

      I gave your request to our director of information and content and after some thorough research, I have the following for you:

      First of all, Mr. Begin never said those words and there is no factual basis for that quote. When we searched for the quote, we found that it looped back to the same text by Texe Marrs, who does not say that he is quoting Begin.

      Further research at this site showed that the quote was attributed to “Amnon Kapeliouk’s article “Begin and the Beasts” (New Statesman, June 25, 1982) which was infamous for having misrepresented some remarks Menachem Begin said in a speech to the Knesset, and there are legitimate sources all over the net that make reference to that incident.

      However, the misrepresented quote is not the one cited (“Our race is the Master Race”, etc.), but another one entirely (see below). Clearly, someone invented the “Master Race” quote and then tacked on Amnon Kapeliouk as the source, to give it credibility. However, even the REAL (and far less offensive) quote has now been proven to have been misrepresented by Kapeliouk.

      The REAL story involving Kapeliouk’s article is provided by a media-watch group called CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), which regularly debunks bogus news reports and misquotes.


      …Internet hate sites, as well as Fisk, attribute the derogation of Palestinians as “two-legged beasts” to former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. The source generally given is:

      Menachem Begin, as quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the Beasts, “New Statesman, June 25, 1982

      Indeed, the radical French-Israeli journalist, Amnon Kapeliouk, did attribute such a quote to Begin in his New Statesman article criticizing Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. The author posited:

      For this reason the government has gone to extraordinary lengths to dehumanize the Palestinians. Begin described them in a speech in the Knesset as “beasts walking on two legs

      However, further investigation by CAMERA reveals that the actual speech upon which Kapeliouk based his quote, as well as news reports at the time demonstrate that the journalist distorted the quote, giving it a completely different tone and meaning. Begin was referring not to “the Palestinians” in a general sense but very specifically, he was referring to terrorists who target children within Israel…Kapeliouk neither recanted nor apologized for his deception…

      I hope that helps.

      Moreover, we will be conferring with others in Israel and abroad to attempt to verify that the no one has ever heard or seen this quote and whether it is authentic. At present, we understand that there is no reliable source and until proven otherwise, which we doubt can be done based on our archival mateiral and personal familiarity with Mr. Begin, we reject the veracity of the words supposedly either spoken or conveyed.

      The quotation is bogus.

      1. It may be bogus and I hope we can get some additional research on this report, it only hurts the cause to report erroneous information, and it is unethical to say the least,
        however the notion among leading Jews in Israel is correct, and that is more to the point

        1. What’s more to the point at this blog though is sticking to the truth, since we’re all trying to find our way out of the web of lies that’s been woven.

      2. I would like to read a transcript of Begin’s full speech to the Knesset in question, but I have searched the web and so far unable to find it. Since CAMERA apparently had access to the entire speech I wonder why they did not simply print it or provide a valid link.

  4. I’m pleased that James Tracy has allowed “Unconventional Thought” here on his blog. Here’s an excerpt from an article from Clint Richardson which I think is one of his best works, and it may be his last. I recommend reading it in its entirety and comprehending it. A false history (one of many) is being created right under our noses, and it is likely to be passed down as fact to our progeny. Sandy Hoax is just a minor cog in a deception machine of unimaginable proportions.

    My Life: The End Of A Journey | REALITY BLOG

    ““So, we start with the question, now, as to why we cannot ask the question why? And that is because of the absence of knowledge of first cause… At school, for instance, we learn to liken words to objects. But even when we apply the word to the object, we have lost something. We have lost inner-meaning. We call things by the name. We say this is a “carrot.” And we therefore get a good mark on our examination paper. But what is a “carrot?” Neither the student nor the teacher knows, actually. It becomes merely a term to define the fact that we have accepted the language which we are studying, and that in that language, this particular vegetable is a “carrot.” But this does not tell us a thing about the “carrot.” It only divides it from some other vegetable. Why it is divided, how it is divided, what the life means, we do not know. But from the very earliest times, human beings attempted to find ways of learning the true meaning of the things which they classified… They made likenesses of the thing they were trying to discover or decide. And in this way they had a little more dimension than we get from words… Words have to be carefully considered and weighed. They can be the cause of war. They can result in riots. They can bring down the stock exchange in a bad catastrophe. They can do all kinds of things to us that we cannot appreciate or understand. And just as we are not permitted by law to injure other persons physically, we must sometimes realize that we can more profoundly influence and injure them verbally… Now, children today aren’t taught basic language. They are taught the names of things, and believe that (because) they have the name that they know the thing. So that if someone asks them, what is a “carrot,” they are apt to say “a vegetable,” and get the correct mark. But they don’t know what a character is, or a “carrot,” or anything else. They do not understand, but they consider the subject closed by the name. And the same is true in many different levels and developments of life. We give names to things, answer them according to their names, and consider that enough. This is one of the points that was made… in connection with education; the problem of finding out the names of things in terms of meaning. And the way to gain meaning is to recognize the basic vitality of the subject under discussion… In other words you have to be able to feel the facts of a thing, not merely listen to it and buy dictionaries. You have to participate in the experience of something in order to know it. And that was why such an emphasis was placed upon pre-school education. The problem is very certain that the faculties of true understanding have to be developed before schooling comes, or the schooling will be very largely rejected. We will finally end up with the individual memorizing the words and knowing nothing about the substance. So the person has to learn to recognize substance first. And the first substances of life are not learned in school, but in the pre-school period of childhood in which the association with adults or with others of its own age group, these result in certain basic experiences of like and dislike, of exception and acceptance and rejection. These things we gradually learn intuitively, then when education comes, we give meaning to words. Otherwise we give no meaning, and we just keep on using words without giving them any substance, essence, or vitality…“
    “Historians, of course, use words to influence the reader. And it is generally admitted today that 90% of history is written by victors at the expense of the vanquished. And we always make a villain out of the loser, regardless of circumstances. So, we have all kinds of problems in history. We take the words; we believe them. But we don’t know whether they are true or not… We decide that the historian is correct if we agree with him. He is incorrect if we disagree with him. When in reality the facts of the matter are seldom actually considered.”

    —Manly P. Hall, from his recorded lecture on “Language: the Use, Misuse and Abuse of Words””

  5. Today’s “historians” seem to have been metamorphosed into bloggers and shock jocks on radio, news outlets, and newspapers, and as actors in Hollywood. Historical “facts” are delivered sometimes even before modern events ever happen. And so it is safe to embrace Mr. Hall’s perception that 90% of history, including that being broadcast and recorded instantly and live on the spot, is likely only the sponsored and paid for opinions of a powerful propagandist regime we call as our government. This model goes well with Huxley’s opinion that 90% of the population is quite hypnotizable in different degrees. No one seems to want to face the Truth that we are a morally, spiritually, and educationally defeated people. For that would mean inevitably that we are as well a militarily conquered people, and that our so-called government is actually the victor of this information war.


  6. I received some truth last night at the movie Hillary’s 2016 about the Klu Klux Klan that had been left out of textbooks for decades. P.S. I’m voting Trump

  7. It doesn’t seem possible such actions occur at institutions of higher learning – characterized in most people’s minds by intellectual efforts aimed at reaching greater truth(s), discipline, integrity, and ultimately wisdom. Gratitude is rightly due to all making efforts to protect the fundamental aims of higher education, along with the fundamental basis of law.

  8. I just thought it appropriate to let you all know that it looks like I’m going to have to be homeless for the foreseeable future, and so, if I’m able to check in at all, it may be through a library computer or something. If I’m not able to check in, or if I’ve died, I just want you all to know that this website has been a wonderful conversation and has deepened my ideas in philosophy and thought, and increased my knowledge of world affairs. I really hope I’m able to find you all again in the future. Thank you all for your contributions to my knowledge, and to James Tracy for providing this forum. Maybe I can start a hobo uprising or something, lol. Wish me luck. The electricity gets turned off this morning. On the bright side, I expect to lose my big belly real soon.

  9. Wonderful writing m, Dr. Fetzer! The more of your writing I read, the more I am coming to respect and admire your efforts (about which I am largely ignorant).

    Thank you for standing up for Dr. Tracy. Thank you for standing up for Dr. Karega!

    I appreciate the bravery of your approach. I have been slow in understanding some of the more polarizing aspects of some information touched on here (such as the involvement of Israel in 9/11).

    My research is leading my to believe that it was indeed Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and the Wurmsers who implemented “A Clean Break” (1996) by kicking out the jams on 9/11. But I think they needed help.

    I’m believing more than ever that Israel was an integral part of the 9/11 operation, but I think it must have also involved a great number of U.S. intel and military. Tarpley described it as high level moles. I think that’s accurate. “Agents of influence” to quote Madsen. But they would have needed the general neocon blessing. The time was ripe.

    I give further credit to Madsen for alerting me to the Yinon plan of 1983. Now we are seeing the decades-old dreams of Israel in the destruction wrought by ISIS.

    I haven’t always agreed with nor even understood your articles, but I sincerely appreciate your solidarity with fellow truth seekers.


  10. > > > Julian Assange Suggests Seth Rich – Who Was MURDERED in DC – Was Wikileaks DNC Source > > Jim Hoft-Cheney Aug 9th, 2016 8:15 pm > > On July 8, 2016, 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich was murdered in Washington DC. The killer or killers took nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone. > > Shortly after the killing, Redditors and social media users were pursuing a “lead” saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family. > > Seth Rich’s father Joel told reporters , “If it was a robbery — it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money — he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life.” > > > > The Metropolitan police posted a reward for information on Rich’s murder. > > > On Tuesday Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information on the murder of DNC staffer Seth rich. > > Now this… > Julian Assange suggested on Tuesday that Seth Rich was a Wikileaks informant. > Via Mike Cernovich : > > > > Julian Assange seems to suggests on Dutch television program Nieuwsuur that Seth Rich was the source for the Wikileaks-exposed DNC emails and was murdered. > > > From the video: > > Julian Assange: Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. As a 27 year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington. > > Reporter: That was just a robbery, I believe. Wasn’t it? > > Julian Assange: No. There’s no finding. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks. > > HOLY SH*T! > > > >>

  11. Speaking of threats, was that Trump Tower climber a “message” to Trump?

    Supposedly he’s a Trump supporter. I’m guessing he’s the only long-haired male Trump supporter in the U.S.

    More importantly, these quotes seem to speak volumes: he was “an independent researcher from VIRGINIA” Most important: “The man’s backpack contained various forms of identification because the man now goes by a different name, police said. His identity has not been determined.”



  12. Might have found the guy who has the dirt: Just Telling Truth (@GeorgWebb) on Twitter. Fascinating series of tweets. Seemed to think the climber had the 33,000 deleted Clinton emails and was going to “fling” them from building. His ostensible name (Stephen Rogata) has no digital footprint.

    @GeorgWebb is a researcher on MKUltra it seems. Claims “Steve from Virginia” was UVA student/hacker in Charlottesville upset about visa overstays. Also implies that climber had been in contact with Russian embassy by way of “drops”.

    Further fascinating is that there is a Steve From Virginia on Twitter. Seems to be a Wall Street type. His last post before climber usurped coverage was from The Intercept. Specifically, how CIA is creating the very problem they are ostensibly tasked and funded to stop.


Comments subject to moderation