by Jim Fetzer
Having done thousands of interviews about JFK, 9/11, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, JADE HELM and the Holocaust, among other matters, it came as no surprise when I was invited to appear on "Ground Zero with Clyde Lewis", which is broadcast over 200 stations across the nation. His producer, Ron Patton, sent me a link to his opening monologue, which I thought was very good. Here's part of our exchange:
[7/31/15, 8:25:21 PM] Ron Patton: http://www.groundzeromedia.org/conspiracy-culture-so-you-think-you-are-not-radicalized/
[7/31/15, 8:25:53 PM] Ron Patton: please check it out when you have a chance. It's Clyde's monologue for tonight's show.
[7/31/15, 8:32:43 PM] James H. Fetzer: It's good. VERY good.
[7/31/15, 8:33:22 PM] James H. Fetzer: If you want links to some of my stuff, try:
[7/31/15, 8:33:32 PM] James H. Fetzer: assassinationresearch.com
[7/31/15, 8:33:37 PM] James H. Fetzer: assassinationscience.com
[7/31/15, 8:33:45 PM] James H. Fetzer: 911scholars.org
[7/31/15, 8:33:52 PM] James H. Fetzer: jamesfetzer.blogspot.com
[7/31/15, 8:34:02 PM] James H. Fetzer: radiofetzer.blogspot.com
[7/31/15, 8:34:09 PM] James H. Fetzer: veteranstruthnetwork.com
[7/31/15, 8:34:44 PM] James H. Fetzer: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsfS5KpYMzb20sCxyfSotfX1ELkIBrXZ3 for "The Real Deal", M/W/F 8-10 PM/ET; and "False Flag Weekly News", http://noliesradio.org/archives/category/archived-shows/false-flag-weekly-news
[7/31/15, 8:35:42 PM] Ron Patton: thanks!
The live broadcast
The show itself, which was broadcast on Friday night from 9-11 PM/ET, would prove to be another matter altogether. It began reasonably enough, where he did his thing in his expansive style and then brought me in with an appropriate introduction. Because my latest book, AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER? (2015), exposes BIG LIES--which I would have thought was consistent with his conspiracy culture theme--I began to sketch its contents:
To listen to the show, click here for the audio recording
But Clyde immediately began confronting me, talking over me and even bringing in his "Jew friend" to attack me on spurious grounds, which derailed and transformed the whole conversation. While I attempted (again and again) to explain how we--Thomas Dalton, Robert Faurisson and Nicholas Kollerstrom also contributed chapters on the Holocaust--Clyde was unrelenting. During the break, Ron sent me the following note:
[7/31/15, 10:59:36 PM] Ron Patton: We are not going to have you on the last hour. thank you.
But that was a colossal blunder, as they may be appreciating in retrospect. I send Ron this response:
[7/31/15, 11:01:08 PM] James H. Fetzer: OK. Ask Clyde for ONE reason why he should know more about these things than I do? Is he better educated? Has he done more research? Has he published on any of them? I am sorry, but not letting him push me around is not being a bad guest. As a host, he is a bully--and an ignorant one, at that. Thanks for featuring me for an hour. I enjoyed it.
In spire of his suppression, I managed to make a few key points, such as that more Catholics than Jews died at Auschwitz; that the number 6,000,000 appears to have a theological or religious origin and does not have historical or empirical support; and that there was even a British soccer team at Auschwitz, which I personally found so counter-intuitive that I featured a photo on the back of the book, where I suggested that listeners should go to amazon.com and check it out. Clyde, I surmise, was not impressed.
Feedback from listeners
There was a tremendous response from listeners to the show, which you can find at these three web sites (and probably more): the Ground Zero web site; the Ground Zero Facebook page; and my own Facebook page. Here are three (out of hundreds) that I think are among the best at capturing what took place, where the first two are from the Ground Zero web page and the third from its web site. They reflect what happened during the show and why so many were dissatisfied with our exchange:
Bill Gibbons, by contrast, provides (what appears very much to be) "The Big Picture" about Clyde Lewis and "Ground Zero", which seems to be a kind of "conspiracy lite" or, as he puts it, "Conspiracy for Republicans". I think this may be the most illuminating of the hundreds of posts that have now appeared about this interview with a "conspiracy theorist" during a show about conspiracy theories, where I explained at the start that that is a phrase introduced by the CIA to stereotype critics of the government's account of the assassination of JFK:
Not the least of the problems confronting Holocaust apologists is that death from Zyklon B would have turned bodies pink and the walls of chambers where it was applied blue; but we have no reports of pink bodies, where the only chambers where the walls turned blue were those used for delousing, which was done with Zyklon B--not to exterminate the inmates, but to maintain their health. These were not extermination centers but labor camps to provide slave labor for the Nazi war effort. And you can't get work out of a corpse.
After listening to the whole show
On Saturday, I listened to the whole show to see if there was something I had missed. I noticed that he began his monologue by taking about HIMSELF as a "truth seeker", which made it incoherent that he attacked me for explaining that I am a "the truth/the whole truth/nothing but the truth" kind of guy. So I sent the following additional reflections Clyde's producer, based upon my further reflections:
[8/1/15, 5:05:25 PM] James H. Fetzer: Ron, I listened to the whole show. Clyde was unbelievably abusive and dishonest during his attempt to justify giving me the boot. My use of the term "ignorant' simply meant he did not know about the research on the Holocaust I was citing, which was OBVIOUS. Here is a dictionary definition:
[8/1/15, 5:05:31 PM] James H. Fetzer: ig·no·rant / adjective: ignorant
(a) lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"
synonyms: uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, benighted; More
inexperienced, unworldly, unsophisticated
"the plight of these ignorant children should be an international concern"
antonyms: educated
(b) lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
"they were ignorant of astronomy"
synonyms: without knowledge of, unaware of, unconscious of, oblivious to, incognizant of, unfamiliar with, unacquainted with, uninformed about, ill-informed about, unenlightened about, unconversant with, inexperienced in/with, naive about, green about; informalin the dark about, clueless about
"they were ignorant of working-class life"
[8/1/15, 5:07:35 PM] James H. Fetzer: I clearly did not mean "in general" but specifically about the Holocaust. He was the one who made it a big deal and the focus of the rest of the show when he call in "his Jew friend" to attack me, which was despicable by itself. He exaggerated what I had said during this attempt to excuse himself for his bad behavior. Egad! He even referred to me as a "moron"! What kind of shit is that?
[8/1/15, 5:08:59 PM] James H. Fetzer: He blew it "big time". I would bet he had the largest audience he has ever had--and he shot himself in the foot. The response from Facebook seems to have been outrage. And not only did he talk over me, but he talked over those who called in as soon as they expressed any sympathy for me or what I had to say. It was a "D-" performance.
Today, I was notified by Skype that it was Ron's birthday, so I sent him a birthday greeting and added a note explaining that I was going to write about this and extended an invitation for him and Clyde to respond. I doubt very much that they will, but if they do, I will be glad to publish what I receive from them.
[8/2/15, 7:01:40 AM] Ron Patton: (cake) It’s Ron Patton’s birthday todayForgot the birthday card? We can help – send them a Skype Gift Card instead.
[8/2/15, 7:27:38 AM] James H. Fetzer: HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Ron! And many more. If you or Clyde want to respond to what I have written here, do that right away, because I plan to write about this and would be glad to have your point of view. But I will probably work on it today.
I have heard nothing back (which comes as no surprise), but if I do, I will publish it here. But I don't expect a response. It can be difficult to justify behavior that is not justifiable--not that it has not become a practice that is all too common in domestic politics and international affairs, where inconsistency and hypocrisy are the coin of the realm. Just consider the political theater associated with the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons' program!
About the 6,000,000
Among the points that I was attempting to explain is that there are 236 references in the international press to 6,000,000 Jews "in distress or fear of loss of their lives" prior to The Nuremberg Tribunals, where the number appears to be derived from a disputed passage in Leviticus, which has been interpreted to mean that "the chose people" can return to "the promised land" only when they are minus 6,000,000 "consumed in the flames" or "in fiery ovens". It has religious or theological origins rather than historical or empirical support.
I discuss the number in "The Holocaust Narrative: Politics trumps Science" (2015), which I have published here and as a chapter in the book. It has also been dissected in the article, "The 'Six Million' Myth" in The Truth Seeker (16 April 2011) and many other places, such as Thomas Dalton, Debating the Holocaust (2009), and Peter Winter, The Six Million: Fact or Fiction? (5th edition, 2014). There is not a lot of room for doubt about it.
That Clyde's "Jew friend" made repeated references to his dead relatives and to witnesses to the Holocaust therefore struck me as contrived and possibly even previously arranged. But as Dalton explains in Debating the Holocaust and in his chapter in my latest book, the historical evidence and empirical data supports a number closer to 296,081, which was the latest update from the International Committee of the Red Cross (1993), where Clyde even questioned why the number should matter!
Are deeper issues involved?
As Thomas Dalton explains in his book and in the chapter in my latest, claims by survivors to have witnessed the death of other inmates in gas chambers, although large in number, have proven incapable of substantiation. Because I am not a scholar of Judaism, much less of The Talmud, I have been reluctant to raises the question of whether or not Jews--as an article of religious faith--believe they are entitled to lie to non-Jews to advance their interests.
As I understand it, the Talmud maintains that Jews have the “divine right” bestowed by God to exploit other breeds, including strangers or foreigners, with whom they interact. People who are not Jews by birth are referred to as “goyim” - a plural of “goy.” In a biblical sense, the word applies to everyone, including Jews [Genesis 10]. In the rabbinical sense, the word is applied only to those who are not born of Jewish mothers, which, I infer, makes converts still "goyim", nevertheless.
There is a regress issue here about the original of the first Jews, but we have the Torah--the first five books of the Old Testament--to account for that. According to Orthodox Judaism, anyone not born of a Jewish mother is a “goy.” When Talmudic rabbis use the word “goy”, moreover, they do so with scorn and prejudice, where the goyim are not human beings but rather beasts. In its commentary on Deuteronomy 7:6, the Talmud explicitly and without reservation makes the following remark:
“You [Jews] are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts” [Baba Mecia, 114:6].
It also makes the following remark: “On the house of the Goy one looks as on the fold of cattle” [Tosefta, Erubin, VIII].
The Talmud also explicitly states that the property of all other peoples belongs to the Jewish nation and that Jews are not required to observe principles of morality when “goyim” are concerned. Please note the following remark from another Jewish book:
“All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which consequently is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other nations, and on the contrary, he even ought to act against morality, if it were profitable for himself or for the interest of Jews in general” [Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat, 348].
Talmud also makes plain that “goyim” are forbidden to steal from either “goyim” or Jews. They are also forbidden to practice slavery or kill. The Jews on the other hand are free to do all of the above. And note the following Talmudic writings:
“A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew, but he [a Jew] is not forbidden to do all this to a goy…If a goy killed a goy or a Jew he is responsible, but if a Jew killed a goy he is not responsible” [Tosefta, Aboda Zara, VIII, 5].
Are Jews obligated to lie?
It should be obvious that the authors of the Talmud were racists and bigots, where non-Jews are regarded as beasts and cattle. They are deprived of justice and human dignity. For this very reason, they sternly forbade any Jew to disclose the contents of the Talmud and the Pentateuch to any person who was not a Jew. In fact, the Talmud explicitly states that any Jew who helps a “goy” in Talmudic studies ought to die. For example,
“To communicate to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all the Jews, for if the goys knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly” [Book of Libre David, 37].
“If a Jew be called to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he only ought to give a false explanation, that he might not, by behaving differently, become an accomplice in betraying this information. Who will violate this order shall be put to death” [Jaktu Chadasz, 171:2].
“It is forbidden to disclose the secrets of the Law. One should and must make false oaths, when the goys ask if our books contain anything against them. Then we are bound to state on oath that there is nothing like that” [Szaalot-Utszabot, The Book of Jore d’a, 17].
“Every goy who studies Talmud, and every Jew who helps him in it, ought to die” [Sanhedryn 59 a. Aboda Zora 8:6. Szagiga 13].
Even in modern times this bigotry is expressed by prominent Jews. Rabbi Emmanuel Rabbinovich said: "Our race will take its rightful place in the world, with every Jew a king and every Gentile a slave" [Common Sense, 12 January 1952].
Rabbi Meir Kahane, told CBS News that his teaching that Arabs are "dogs" is derived "from the Talmud." (CBS 60 Minutes, "Kahane"). Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared: "We have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same thing." (New York Times, 6 June 1989, p. 5).
Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said: "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." (New York Daily News, 28 February 1994, p. 6).
If these are accurate quotes--and there seem to be dozens of sources confirming that they are--then those of us who have supposed that reason and morality would eventually lead to resolution of the Palestinian / Israeli conflict (or that an Israeli Prime Minister who learned from the Mossad that Iran was not pursuing nukes would not assert precisely the opposite at the UN three weeks later) need to reconsider our position. We cannot deal responsibly with other parties and factions without knowing the reality of the situation that we are in.
Apparently, we cannot ask for the truth regarding their beliefs from those who are obligated to lie. Thus, lying about the Holocaust to promote the perceived interests of Zionism and support the creation of a Jewish state would not only not be considered to be morally wrong but might even be construed as morally obligatory. Which, in turn, may explain why so many are so willing to disregard 236 references to 6,000,000 Jews in dire straits or fear of loss of their lives prior to The Nuremberg Tribunals--and to ignore the empirical and scientific proofs that invalidate this elaborate but indefensible narrative.