The Heretics' Hour: How Politics Affects Revisionism

Published by carolyn on Mon, 2013-06-03 19:04
 
00:00

June 3, 2013

Carolyn finally discusses her May 25th response to Kevin Barrett that appeared on carolynyeager.net.  She ties this in with a thread on the Codoh Forum begun on May 23rd by Nick Kollerstrom praising Jim Fetzer and Barrett as the “finest members of the Truth movement” and that Fetzer had become a Holo-Revisionist. The point of it all is:

  • When it comes to revisionism, politics trumps science every time;
  • All revision has to fit in with the current dominant political philosophy, and right now that is Left;
  • Does a leftist like Jim Fetzer “coming out” help or hinder (in the long run) the revisionist cause;
  • Kevin Barrett calls NPR (National Public Radio) National-Socialist Public Radio;
  • Barrett won’t accept historians consensus that Hitler did not burn down the Reichstag;
  • Revisionist techniques according to Wikipedia are really anti-revisionist techniques;
  • Holocausters are now worried about relativization and trivialization, and sympathy for Germans who were expelled from their Eastern European homelands.

Image: “Truth Movement" buddies James Fetzer, left, and Kevin Barrett in 2011, looking pleased with themselves.

Comments

12 Responses

  1. Gil Martin

    June 4, 2013 at 11:44 am

    Barrett is a Muslim moron. How can you take any white man seriously who takes the Koran seriously? Even the Dalai Lama says it is ridiculous and pointless to look outside your race and culture for truth and wisdom.

    Fetzer is a fruit-loop. If there is “conspiracy OCD” he’s got it in spades. He may be genuine but…I smell something. It may be his mental disorder or…

    Kollerstrom belongs to the “let’s not be beastly to the Muslims” school of thought. His book on 7-7 borders on the incoherent. I’ve heard him speak and he comes across as genuine, intelligent, well-intentioned and very naive.

  1. Markus

    June 4, 2013 at 6:29 pm

    “We won this war with atrocity propaganda…and now we will start more than ever! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will increase it until nobody will accept one good word from the Germans anymore, until everything is destroyed which might have upheld them sympathies in other countries, and until they will be so confused that they dont know what to do anymore. When this is reached, when they begin to pollute their own nest, and this not reluctantly but with hasty willingness to obey the winners, only then the victory is complete. It will never be definite. The reeducation demands thorough, steadfast nurture like English lawn. Only one moment of inattention and the weed will break through, this ineradicable weed of historic truth.” – Sefton Delmer, former British chief propagandist after the capitulation in 1945 to the German expert on international law Prof. Grimm.

    Delmer was a German born British Jew.

  1. P

    June 4, 2013 at 11:09 pm

    Hi Carolyn,

    Is Barrett still teaching for money in academia? I recall he was fired/resigned and then moved full steam into the lucrative podcast scene. What’s his source of income? I’d love this truther to talk specifically about how he pays his family’s food & rent.

  1. Carolyn

    June 5, 2013 at 1:00 am

    Kollerstrom belongs to the “let’s not be beastly to the Muslims” school of thought. His book on 7-7 borders on the incoherent. I’ve heard him speak and he comes across as genuine, intelligent, well-intentioned and very naive.

    Yes, I pretty much agree. I heard him a few months ago, something like that, on one of Fetzer’s radio shows and he did a lot of stuttering. He was supposed to be updating his 7/7 expose, but seemed to want to be led by Fetzer, was unsure at times whether it was okay to go ahead and say this or that, and even became confused. He seems like a sweet person, very sincere, but in no way dominating. The opposite.

  1. Carolyn

    June 5, 2013 at 1:23 am

    Gil Martin – This is really hilarious. Jim Fetzer just showed up on Codoh Forum. With this:

    Re: Jim Fetzer becomes a Holo- Revisionist

    Postby JimFetzer » Tue Jun 04, 2013 7:29 pm
    Let me add to the discussion, which has been reasonably thoughtful to this point in time. I have just published

    “Anti-Anti-Semitism and the Search for Historical Truth”,
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/04 … cal-truth/

    If you listen to the interviews I link there, then you should be able to track my reasoning about the reality of the Holocaust, combined with “On Revisionism, Historicism” and ICRC records I also cite as among the most important factors that have influenced my thinking. In addition, I have several earlier articles related to the Holocaust, namely:

    “The War on Truth: Research on the Holocaust can End your Career”
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/04 … ur-career/

    “ISIS trips, stumbles and falls”
    http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/06 … falls.html

    I also have a two-hour interview with Ernst Zundel in the archives for “The Real Deal”, which I am sure most of those who are active here will appreciate:

    3 FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 2012
    Ernst Zundel
    Persecuted & imprisoned for research on WWII
    http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20 … 0zundel.mp

    User avatar
    JimFetzer
    Beginner
    Beginner

    Posts: 2
    Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 7:06 pm

    The Moderator told him the Rule was that when posting links one had to say why one thought it was important or valuable. So Fetzer comes back with this:

    (1) The new article discusses constraints being proposed that would make Holocaust denial a crime in most countries:

    “When did fact become myth? Is Jewish ownership of large sections of the media a myth? Are AIPAC and the US government’s subservience to Israel a myth? Is repeated interference in Church affairs by Jewish groups a myth?”–Stuart Littlewood

    As Stuart Littlewood has reported, “These ‘commandments’ must be obeyed”, a new surge of suppression of criticism of the policies and actions of the government of Israel has surfaced. These “commandments” are clearly intended to reflect a conception of anti-Semitism that is vastly broader than is justifiable and which has the effect of insulating Zionists and the State of Israel from criticism, no matter how criminal, immoral or corrupt their acts:

    Is there a working definition of anti-Semitism? Yes, it’s here: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

    For example….

    * Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

    * Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

    As Stuart observes, “When did fact become myth? Is Jewish ownership of large sections of the media a myth? Are AIPAC and the US government’s subservience to Israel a myth? Is repeated interference in Church affairs by Jewish groups a myth?” In logic, this is called “begging the question” by taking for granted (assuming or presupposing) a proposition when its truth requires establishment on independent grounds. This is a stance that is loaded with presuppositions and assumptions that are intended to insure that Israel and Zionism are afforded formal, official protection, when the fact of the matter is that there are good reasons to question many elements of the accounts we have been given about the Holocaust, for example, where the power exerted by the Israeli lobby are largely fueled by Western guilt over offenses that appear to be highly exaggerated if not complete fabrications. (read more)

    (2) The second and third articles concern the experiences of Nicholas Kollerstrom, an historian of science, who was fired from his position at University College London for conducting scientific research on the Holocaust–in particular, on the claim that Zykon-B had been used to murder masses–and a second article about how a reviewer for ISIS suggested that a collaborative volume on the history of astronomers–for which Nick authored the key article on Sir Isaac Newton–ought to be sent back to the publisher and pulped, not because of its contents but because Nick, who had done research on the Holocaust, had contributed to the book.

    (3) The interview with Ernst Zundel, which his wife told me she thought was the best interview he had ever given, covered his experiences and the consequences of his research on the Holocaust without actually detailing any of his findings or arguments, which would have been a violation of German laws against Holocaust denial, which I regard as absurd. If the Holocaust was real, then research will affirm it; and it it was not, the world deserves to know. Definitely worth a listen.

    Haha. Naturally he just barges in and thinks he will take over. This should be interesting. The page is here: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7911&p=59753#p59753

  1. Hadding

    June 5, 2013 at 7:56 am

    The reference to “mistranslation” obviously refers above all to the verb ausrotten and the noun Ausrottung. It’s hilarious that Holocaustians, who insist that Ausrottung can only mean killing, accuse revisionists of mistranslation for pointing out that in pre-1945 usage the word usually doesn’t mean that.

    This question particularly bears on Himmler’s Posen speech of 3 October 1943. The whole meaning of that speech hinges on the word Ausrottung: the Holocaustians insist that it means killing even though this produces absurdities within the speech:

    A closer examination of the text makes it impossible that killing is what is meant, since Himmler says that every party member knows that Ausrottung of the Jews is being done, and that it is in unserem Programm, obviously meaning the party-program of the NSDAP. To construe Ausrottung as mass-murder in this speech is to understand Himmler as saying not only that every party member knew that the Jews were to be killed, but that the intention had been declared by the NSDAP already in 1920. Ausrottung does not have to mean killing, and in this speech it clearly does not. The NSDAP’s program only says (point 4) that Jews are not members of the German nation and may not be German citizens. Therefore a proper translation for Ausrottung here would be exclusion or expulsion. READ MORE

  1. Carolyn

    June 5, 2013 at 9:56 am

    Is Barrett still teaching for money in academia? I recall he was fired/resigned and then moved full steam into the lucrative podcast scene. What’s his source of income? I’d love this truther to talk specifically about how he pays his family’s food & rent.

    I don’t think he has had any teaching jobs. He ran for Congress a couple of times and received campaign donations. He has written a couple of books. Maybe his wife works.

  1. Neal Joitke

    June 7, 2013 at 12:07 pm

    There is something missing in these broadcasts.
    Like murder lots of people dead all conviently out of the way of Jews. There is oh so little about all these people just die and pave the way for ever increasing amounts of Jewish perversion. We should compile a long list it grows by the day almost. A program called Jewish murder in review would be a valuable podcast. You will never run out of material.

  1. blake121666

    June 13, 2013 at 11:16 pm

    Hey Caroline,

    Jim Fetzer, Pasquale DiFabrizio, and Mark Elsis spent much of the June 5 broadcast talking about you. You might want to listen to it. It appears that they don’t know much about you and don’t like your broadcast style.

    http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/

    Direct link to mp3

    http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-pasquale%20elsis.mp3

  1. Carolyn

    June 14, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    Thanks blake. I was unaware of it and did click on your link and listen to it. This program certainly bears out that Jim Fetzer is careless in the things he says, and that some things are said without regard to any fact-finding. He made a couple of statements several times over that are patently untrue. For someone who also boasted again and again what a careful researcher he is, there is no excuse for him not to have found out what he was talking about before he said something untrue. His “dear friend” Pasquale is even worse! Mark Elsis is a separate case.

    One thing Jim Fetzer kept repeating was that I didn’t listen to his program with Kevin Barrett, I only read the promo for the program that was published at Veterans Today; therefore I was speaking out of ignorance. Does he know I didn’t listen to it? Did I say I didn’t? No. In fact, certainly I listened to it. It was not what Kevin promised it to be; it was mundane, no more than what Fetzer had already said in the past. No big “coming out” at all.

    [My program of June 3 was more about Kevin Barrett and his peculiar type of dishonesty I have experienced first-hand, but then also the thread at CODOH Forum started by Fetzer's "dear friend" Nick Kollerstrom, which I followed. Kollerstrom is an honest revisionist, he's just naive.]

    The second thing Fetzer kept repeating was that I have never read anything he’s written, especially his anti-antisemitism article and don’t know anything about him. How can he know that? He doesn’t, and in fact I did read it. It contains nothing new, is very tepid, and is mostly a promotion of himself which is what much of his writing amounts to. By mainly harping on these two claims, he is knowingly misrepresenting me.

    [Fetzer is constantly urging people to read his articles. He insists that if one reads what he writes, they will agree with him. He insists that he lays it all out, with all the facts. But the truth is, his articles do not enlighten; they confuse.]

    But he also complained that I said lots of people have called him a liar, but I didn’t name a single one. True, but I didn’t want to bring other people into it without their prior permission. One person I can name is Anthony Lawson, the 9/11 researcher and video-maker, and Fetzer is well-aware that Lawson calls him a liar and says that Fetzer refuses to correct mistakes when they’re pointed out to him. I know many people who consider Jim Fetzer “disinfo” but I’m not going to name them — they can be looked up on the Net. Search under “Jim Fetzer, disinfo agent” or “Jim Fetzer, liar”. On the above-mentioned thread at CODOH Forum, there were posts written about Fetzer’s reputation, which were later removed by the moderator as “not relevant or appropriate.”

    I will be talking about this (as briefly as possible) on my Saturday Afternoon program tomorrow. My guests will be Joe and Jim Rizoli. If you’re interested in this, listen in then.

  1. Hatha

    June 15, 2013 at 7:20 am

    Carolyn said: Yes, I pretty much agree. I heard him a few months ago, something like that, on one of Fetzer’s radio shows and he did a lot of stuttering. He was supposed to be updating his 7/7 expose, but seemed to want to be led by Fetzer, was unsure at times whether it was okay to go ahead and say this or that, and even became confused. He seems like a sweet person, very sincere, but in no way dominating. The opposite.

    I heard that Kollerstrom podcast with Fetzer, and was struck by how, esp in the 2nd hour, Fetzer seemed to go AWOL mentally, as though he were drugged and/or just falling asleep at the mic. There were long, very awkward silences after NK would finish a point, when JF should have been responding, probing, counter-pointing etc; but he was just eerily silent, leaving NK in the lurch. I felt sorry for NK as he’d then often continue, but I felt his pain as his host, JF, wasn’t “supporting” the “dialog” in places where it was plainly time for him to speak up & participate.

    The show with 20 comments:
    http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2013/04/nick-kollerstrom.html
    direct MP3:
    http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-kollerstrom%20holocaust%202013%20april.mp3

  1. Carolyn

    June 15, 2013 at 10:34 am

    I think Fetzer is a multitasker and starts doing something else when the guest is talking. In this case, I felt that Kollerstrom had the mic, he was in the process of telling the story as he had researched it, so there was no reason for him to keep hesitating and ask Fetzer if he should go on. Of course he should go on. What is he there for? I didn’t have the feeling that the host needed to keep prompting him.

Add new comment