Jim
Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus
at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He has published widely on the
theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science,
artificial intelligence, cognitive science and evolution and mentality.
Ole Dammegård is an author, international speaker, investigator, former
journalist, artist who is behind the website Light On Conspiracies. Ole
and Jim join us to speak about their new book collaboration called, "And
I suppose we didn't go to the Moon, either?" It is a collection of
essays on government lies that is intended to challenge some of our most
cherished and deeply held beliefs. Our conversation begins with the
first subject of the book – the Apollo 11 Moon landing. Jim takes us
through a few of the vast number of anomalies in the 5,000+ photographs
in existence, and he talks about the problem with the Van Allen
radiation belt, which continues to be a giant obstacle for space travel
today. Ole gives his interpretation of why so many connections exist
amongst various conspiracies within the government, and we discuss the
backlash that is felt by researchers who decide to look into some of the
most preposterous events in history. Then, we delve into the holocaust,
anti-Semitism, hate speech, and the big media promotors of
disinformation, as well as the deterioration of news coverage that is
pushing the mainstream to alternative sources. In the members’ segment,
we start with the fascinating tale of the Beatles and their golden boy,
Paul McCartney. Jim relates how the British invasion of pop music in the
US sparked a revival of spirit that was clung to by the grief-stricken
youth who were reeling from the shocking assassination of JFK. We get
into the details of the extreme operation that was used to replace the
original Paul, who is said to have died in a car accident in 1966. Jim
points to the numerous signs that suggest the Beatles placed clues about
the death in their album artwork, lyrics, and even in the way they
referred to Paul. Then, we look into the assassination of Saddam
Hussein’s double and the real death of this beloved boogeyman. We also
touch on the fakery surrounding Osama Bin Laden’s death and the
disproportionately influential AIPAC lobby power that has been granted
as a result of the sham. At the end, Jim gives us a rundown of the
latest insane operation that has even the mainstream buzzing – Jade
Helm. We chew over the different components of this military maneuver of
which we can apply deductive reasoning, and we speculate on what could
be in store for us if indeed we are on the road to Martial Law.
Subscribe to Red Ice Radio in iTunes: itpc://www.redicecreations.com/radio/radio.xml
Subscribe to Red Ice Radio
Jim Fetzer, a former
Marine Corps officer, has published widely on the theoretical
foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial
intelligence, cognitive science, and evol...Show More
Imagine the benefits that would be derived from a dictionary in
which the words were improperly defined, whether that occurred
accidentally or not. And similar considerations apply to encyclopedias.–The author
But of course challenging the role of dual-citizens in policy-forming
or decision-making positions because who knows whether their loyalty to
the United States might be outweighed by their loyalty to the other
state becomes, in the hands of Wikipedia, “Anti-Defamation League has critized Fetzer for allegedly focusing on “American government officials of Jewish background”.[62] But to be Jewish is not to be a citizen of another nation, which makes this a gross distortion.
The Academic Freedom Conference of 26 April 2014
The change in tenor between the entry of 17 April 2014, which is
presented below, and of 31 May 2014, which follows, is so blatant and
extensive that it has caused me to reflect upon what could have caused
this major revision, where my best guess is that it was precipitated by
my participation in the conference, “Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry?”, using JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust as examples. It just happened to be held in Champaign-Urbana, IL, on 26 April 2014.
I both organized the conference with Stephen Francis and served as
its moderator. But the crucial reason for trashing me now and making
massive revisions to my entry–which underwent an earlier revision, as I
have explained above, but not on the order of this one–has to be what I
had to say, not about JFK and 9/11, especially (even though I have
emphasized Israeli complicity in the events of 9/11), but what I said
about the Holocaust, which the American public needs to know:
The decimation of my entry–apart from the
summary of my academic contributions–was both savage and painstaking in
ways one might expect if Wikipedia were a Zionist disinformation
operation. I am no longer a “noted philosopher of science and leading
conspiracy theorist” but now merely “a philosopher of science and
conspiracy theorists”, where my research on 9/11, especially, where my
“allegations and speculations [on 9/11] have drawn strong
criticism.[7][8][9][10]”.
Wikipedia entry of 31 May 2014
The first crucial point that should be understood is that Wikipedia
eschews references to original sources. That is quite remarkable in
itself, since any professional scholar can confirm that serious research
has to be based on original sources. The benefit of relying upon
secondary or even tertiary sources is that Wikipedia can pick and choose
between those who comment on a subject to support its preferred
depiction and reject complaints that they are ignoring the best sources.
There is a nice smear at the end, which is intended to tarnish my
reputation, claiming that the University of Minnesota asserting I have
claimed “a false association between my views and those of the
university”. But if you trace the alleged source, no such claim is made; and the university has made no effort to rein me in. And for good reason: only administrators speak for institution. Faculty never speak for their institutions, which makes this a clever misrepresentation.
The presentation of my conspiracy claims is
contracted to the point of virtual unintelligibility. (Compare this with
the extended discussion in the earlier version of my entry, where JFK,
9/11 and Wellstone are accorded their own sections.) And the attack
focusing on my earliest article in VT about Sandy Hook completely
disregards a dozen subsequent ones, which explain that the evidence
substantiates that no children actually died and it was an elaborate
gun-control hoax.
Indeed, the earliest reports were consistent with a Mossad attack,
including what appeared to have been a three-man team that was arrested
but whose names were never released and reports of a van traveling to
Greenwich Village to a Mossad safe-house, where Gordon Duff, Mike Harris
and I believed at the time that this had been their handiwork. The
failure to report my later work illustrates the fallacy of only citing
evidence in your favor and simply ignoring the rest.
This is known as “special pleading”, which is a common practice among
used-car salesmen, politicians and disinformation operators. Notice the
novel insistence that “mainstream views” be taken into account, as if public interest in “conspiracy theorists” did not derive from their divergence from mainstream views.
So not only are Wiki editors having free reign by citing secondary
sources in preference to primary but they can also assail their targets
as being “out of step” with the mainstream media. Unreal!
Wikipedia entry of 17 April 2014
What is most revealing, however, is the drastic revision of the
discussion of my conspiracy research, which was gutted from the version
that appeared as recently as 17 April 2014, but where the precipitating
event for these massive changes appears to have been the Academic
Freedom Conference, which was held on 26 April 2014. This is the kind of
swift and massive retribution we might expert from the God of the Old
Testament, who takes no prisoners. Consider the following:
In the latest version, of course, I am no
longer “a noted philosopher of science and a leading conspiracy
theorist”, but simply someone who, in the early 1990s, “began promoting
JFK assassination conspiracy theories” and subsequently conspiracy
theories about 9/11 and Wellstone. The fact that I created a research
group consisting of the most highly qualified individuals to very study
the death of JFK, which led to three classic collections of expert
studies, is not even mentioned much less discussed.
Nor would a reader learn that I have chaired or co-chaired five
national conferences on JFK or that I am not only the founder of
Scholars for 9/11 Truth but organized its first national conference in
Madison (2007) and its first international conference in Vancouver
(2012) nor that edited the first book from Scholars, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY
(2007). None of that contributes to the effort undertaken to trivialize
and smear me as a scholar.
Indeed, it never ceases to amaze me how I could have attained so many forms of distinction for my past research as an academician,
yet suddenly lose my ability to conduct research when it comes to JFK,
9/11 or the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, much less Sandy Hook and the
Boston bombing. But the editors of Wikipedia have a lot of confidence in
their readers being unable to add “2” and “2”, enabling them to be
played for saps.
The gratuitous smear for “falsely associating” my views with those of
the University of Minnesota is not present. But notice especially that the
introduction to my “conspiracy claims” in the earlier version is longer
than the entire section about my “conspiracy claims” in the new one. In the older version, there were separate
sections about the assassination of JFK, the 9/11 attacks, the death of
Sen. Paul Wellstone, my alleged “anti-Semitism” and my views on Middle
Eastern affairs. None of this appears in the new entry.
JFK, 9/11 and Wellstone
Reliance upon secondary or tertiary sources pays off “big time” when
one op is citing another, creating the false impression of confirmation
for the original source by an independent one. The reference to Josiah
Thompson, for example, is a perfect illustration, where he has attacked
me probably a thousand times since I organized and moderated the first
symposium on Zapruder film alteration during the JFK Lancer Conference
in Dallas in 1996. I have exposed his role as a JFK disinfo op in “JFK, the CIA and The New York Times”, which every student of the assassination should be required to read.
Moreover, other prominent figures in the field, such as Robert
Groden, who even served as an expert for the House Select Committee on
Assassinations when it reinvestigated the case in 1976-77, turns out to
be a limited hangout specialist, as I explained in “The JFK: The Challenging Case of Robert Groden”.
It might be a good idea for every American to come to grips with what
we know now about the death of our 35th president, which I present with
supporting evidence in “JFK at 50: The Who, the How and the Why”, which you will not find linked to any entry in Wikipedia.
Anti-Semitism and Middle Eastern Affairs
That Wikipedia included this section on “Middle Eastern Affairs” was
something that I greatly appreciated, because my interviews with Press TV,
for example, are among my most important current contributions. And the
Iranian press is far more open, accurate and informative than, say, The New York Times, where “Mossad Played a Crucial Role in 9/11 Attacks”, offers a nice illustration of something important that you will not read in The Times.
Wikipedia as an encyclopedia
While there are similarities between dictionaries and encyclopedias, there are important distinctions as well (as Wikipedia itself explains):
A dictionary is primarily focused on
words and their definition, and typically provides limited information,
analysis of different forms, and an etymology (in more complete
dictionaries) for the word defined. Hence, while it may offer a
definition, it may leave the reader still lacking in understanding the
meaning or import of a term, and how the term relates to a broader field
of knowledge. An encyclopedia, on the other hand, seeks to discuss
each subject in more depth and convey the accumulated knowledge on that
subject. This characteristic is especially true of those encyclopedias
with long monographs on particular subjects, such as the first ten
editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica. While often organized alphabetically, some encyclopedias were not.
The presumption, of course, is that the entires in dictionaries and
encyclopedias will be accurate and true, where those in encyclopedias go
beyond the meaning of words to explain core concepts and the basic
knowledge fundamental to a discipline. Imagine the benefits that would
be derived from a dictionary in which the words were improperly defined,
whether that occurred accidentally or not. It would defeat the purpose
of a reference work of that kind. And similar considerations apply to an
encyclopedia, which would otherwise be untrustworthy and unreliable. It
would mislead and deceive rather than enlighten and inform.
The situation with Wikipedia, therefore, is anomalous when viewed as
an encyclopedia. Its entries are often inaccurate and misleading, where
advancing accurate and complete entries on its subjects clearly does not
determine what is published. The very idea of avoiding primary sources
and demanding secondary or even tertiary instead is a recipe for
manufacturing false and deceptive entries, as this entry about me and earlier entires about Scholars for 9/11 Truth,
for example, exemplify. It has become increasingly apparent, over time,
that Wikipedia does not aspire to accuracy and completeness about its
subjects.
Why have an encyclopedia that does not aspire to truth and
completeness, especially when its subjects represent diverse political
and philosophical positions? We have an instructive instance where my
entry was savaged from one that was relatively, if not perfectly,
balanced to one that is grossly biased and misleading. The reason
appears to be that, between 17 April 2014 and 31 May 2014, I
addressed the Holocaust and explained why it deserves to be included in
the academic curriculum of colleges and universities here and elsewhere,
which was, for Wikipedia, an unpardonable sin. As we should expect from
a Zionist disinformation operation, politics of necessity trumps truth. Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer and
McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, is a
noted philosopher of science and a leading conspiracy theorist.
Strange, Inconceivable Fire: Leviticus And Holocaust Remembrance Day
Posted:
Updated:
There
are times when the weekly Torah portion dovetails neatly with
contemporary life. There are other weeks when writing a reflection
requires digging deep into the wells of creativity to find a resonant
connection. And then there are the weeks when it is uncomfortably
jarring to read the Torah portion in the context of a particular moment
in our lives. For me, this is one of those weeks.
The Torah portion of Shemini (Leviticus 9:1-11:47)
begins by instructing the priests -- Aaron and his sons -- on how to
carry out animal sacrifices, specifically sin offerings and burnt
offerings. The concept of sacrifices, not to mention the bloody details,
is strange enough to our modern ears. But this week, as we prepare to
commemorate Yom Ha'Shoah,
Holocaust Remembrance Day, on Thursday, it is almost sickening to read
how "the flesh and the skin were consumed in fire" (Leviticus 9:11), and
even more so to consider these words and acts something God would
command.
Furthermore, in a linguistic application whose theological implications make me shudder, the word "holocaust" is derived from the Greek word for the Temple sacrifices, suggesting that the victims of the Nazis were burnt offerings to God.
The
instructional narrative of this Torah portion is then interrupted by a
disturbing story in which two of Aaron's sons, the young priests Nadav
and Avihu, offer what the text calls esh zarah, usually
translated as "strange fire" -- an offering not requested by God -- and
are in turn themselves consumed by God's fire (Leviticus 10:1-2). In the
aftermath of this tragedy, Moses warns Aaron and his two remaining sons
to refrain from the outward signs of mourning, but reassures them that
the rest of the community will mourn their kinsmen.
Though the
story serves an obvious purpose in underscoring the tremendous power of
the priests and the need for them to be precise in fulfilling their
ritual duties, much is left unanswered. Were Nadav and Avihu righteous
men but inexperienced priests who made one fatal mistake, or were they
deviating from the priestly playbook in arrogance? Were they drunk, or
were they so holy that they ascended to God in fiery ecstasy? Are we to
mourn them, condemn them for their actions, or hold them in awe for
their direct encounter with God? Generations of rabbinic commentators
have argued these and other possibilities.
Rereading the story
this year, two elements struck me. First, the mourning prohibition Moses
requires of Aaron and his sons. How could Moses ask his brother and
nephews to forego these mourning rituals? I picture this family holed up
in the Mishkan, the portable Temple of the desert, afraid to
move for fear of breaking down or of eliciting more dangerous fire, but
filled to overflowing with rending grief. The text does not detail the
mourning of the community beyond saying that they will cry (Leviticus
10:6), but I cannot imagine that even the loudest communal wailing could
give appropriate voice to the personal grief of Aaron and his family.
In
light of Yom Ha'Shoah, this scene reminds me of the history of
uncertainty and discomfort around how to mourn publicly for the victims
of the Nazis. Note, for example, that the original Israeli proposal for a
commemoration pegged it to the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising,
which began on April 19, 1943. It is, often, easier to speak of and
mourn for those who resisted than those who seemingly did not.
Ultimately, the Israeli date for Yom Ha'Shoah is determined in relationship to their Memorial Day
and Independence Day, thereby rooting the political origin story of the
State of Israel and its ongoing military struggles in the story of the
Holocaust. Public mourning always has its context and its purposes,
which may or may not relate to the personal needs of mourners.
I
am also struck by the power of personal stories and of naming. The story
of Nadav and Avihu is haunting not only because it is dramatic and
unresolved, but also because the two victims are named and are the sons
of Aaron and the nephews of Moses and Miriam, all characters we've come
to know well by this point in the biblical narrative. How, I wonder,
might we read this episode differently if the two young men consumed by
fire were unnamed, of unknown lineage?
Of course, mourning for
millions of lost lives is necessarily different than for two. Part of
the challenge of Yom Ha'Shoah is the inconceivable vastness of the
tragedy, which can be simultaneously overwhelming and distancing. How
can one wrap one's mind around a number like 6 million? And how can one
relate to the loss of each individual life, especially if one does not
have a specific relative or story in mind?
In college, I participated each year in a communal exercise to grapple with both the hugeness of the Shoah
and its individual impact. Each year on Yom Ha'Shoah, we organized
volunteers to read the names of the victims, in the middle of campus,
for 24 consecutive hours. During my sophomore year, I took the 3 a.m.
shift, and stood in front of the library in the dark, chilly April
night, reading names into the quiet emptiness. In the midst of this
rhythm, I stopped suddenly, my stomach sinking, my breath catching. For
there it was: my own name.
I have no idea who that Judith
Rosenbaum was, where she was from, or how old she was when she died.
Perhaps she was a relative, perhaps not. But I do know that reading her
-- our -- name changed me. It brought me into the story in a new way.
Maybe
that is the role of Nadav and Avihu, too. We never learn what really
happened, just as I won't know the story of this other Judith Rosenbaum.
But the possibilities left open by the absences in the biblical
narrative make room for us to identify with them, or with Aaron and his
family. And suddenly, in the midst of the litany of laws of priestly
sacrifices, we might find ourselves confronted by a consuming fire.
ON Scripture -- The Torah is a weekly Jewish scriptural commentary, produced in collaboration with Odyssey Networks and Hebrew College.
Thought leaders from the United States and beyond offer their insights
into the weekly Torah portion and contemporary social, political, and
spiritual life.
By Theodore Shoebat
From suing Christian businesses, now the sodomites are trying to sue
the Bible itself! A homosexual deviant is suing a Christian publishers
70 million dollars because the Bible they published has verses against
homosexuals. According to the report:
Bradley LaShawn Fowler, an ex-con turned author, filed
the federal suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan on Monday, the same day a judge refused to appoint him a lawyer
for his suit against Thomas Nelson, The Grand Rapids Press reported.
“The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims,” the judge wrote.
Fowler, who is representing himself in both cases, claims that
Zondervan manipulated Scripture by using the term “homosexuals” in 1
Corinthians 6:9 of their 1982 and 1987 revised edition Bibles. He also
contends that the reference to homosexuality were deleted by the
publisher in later versions without informing the public.
He alleges that since the older Kings James Version containing the
term “homosexuals” is used by his family pastor, he has been outcast by
his family.
The 39-year-old is suing the Grand Rapids publisher for compensation
of 20 years of “emotional duress and mental instability,” he told
WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids.
In a hand-written suit, Fowler lists all sorts of charges against
Zondervan including malicious negligence, strict liability, malice,
libel, and violating his civil rights. He filed a suit in June against
Tennessee-based publisher Thomas Nelson on similar grounds. He’s seeking
$60 million from Zondervan and $10 million from Thomas Nelson
Publishing.
Zondervan issued a statement to The Christian Post that said they do
not discuss ongoing litigation. The company’s spokesperson Tara Powers,
however, pointed out that they only publish Bibles, not translate them.
“Since Zondervan does not translate the Bible or own the copyright
for any of the translations we publish, we are not in a position to
comment on the merits of how a word should or should not be translated,”
said Powers.
“We rely on the scholarly judgment of the highly respected and
credible translation committees behind each translation and never alter
the text of the translations we are licensed to publish. We only publish
credible translations produced by credible biblical scholars,” she
noted.
According to Fowler, Zondervan has 20 days to respond to the claims listed.
The reprobates always argue that me telling the pro-gay bakeries to
make me a cake that says, “Gay marriage is wrong,” is inadequate because
the message is hateful, whereas a “gay wedding” cake is something that
is positive and not hateful to anything. This is what they argue. But
what nobody is saying, is that a “gay wedding” cake is hateful, it is
hateful against Christianity. It is a declaration of war against
Christianity itself. This is why the sodomites will attack the Bible
itself, because the war is against Christianity.
We have to prepare our minds and intellect for this spiritual war
that we are in. This is why I made a 2-disk DVD series on teaching the
warring spirit of the Christian Faith.
UPDATE: While the story is true, we were informed that the story is
from 2008, which does not undermine the truth that the homosexual agenda
is about a war against the Bible
No comments:
Post a Comment