Sunday, August 28, 2016

Academic Freedom Conference II: Are there limits to inquiry?


Jim Fetzer and Stephen Francis are very pleased to present:

Academic Freedom Conference (Taped Saturday, 27-28 August 2016)


















ACADEMIC FREEDOM CONFERENCE II:
Are there Limits to Inquiry?

Should faculty be restrained from or even punished for investigating

complex and controversial events of enormous political significance?

ACADEMIC FREEDOM CONFERENCE II: 

Are there limits to inquiry?


AFC II: Introduction: James H. Fetzer


WHY DOES IT MATTER?


AFC II: Session 1: Francis A. Boyle, Ph.D., noted Professor of

International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law,

earned his  A.B. in Political Science from Chicago, J.D. from

Harvard Law School and his A.M. and Ph.D. in Political Science

also from Harvard University.


AFC II Session 2: Stephen Francis proposed the first Academic

Freedom Conference on 26 April 2014, held on the campus of the

University of Illinois-UC, where he earned a degree in sociology.  He

promotes the exercise of critical thinking and unconventional thought.


AFC II Session 3: What happened to "9/11 in the Academic Community"?



AFC II Session 4: Nick Kollerstrom, Ph.D., an historian of science and

the leading expert on the 7/7 London bombings, had his appointment

at University College London terminated for undertaking scientific

research on World  War II that undermines widely-accepted accounts.



WITHIN THE ACADEMY


AFC II Session 5: Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D., professor of

philosophy and attorney-at-law, has published on the moon landing

hoax, Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing, including exposing the

role of Snopes.com in misleading the public regarding those events.



AFC II Session 6: Darrell Hamamoto, Ph.D., Professor of Asian

American Studies at the University of California, David, has published

extensively on the representation of Asian Americans in films and on

TV, especially in relation to political issues and freedom of expression.



AFC II Session 7: Kevin McDonald, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology

at Cal State-Long Beach (retired), has 8 books on evolutionary theory

and has focused on group selection and the significance of different

strategies of adaptation and on social and personality development.


SOME SPECIAL CASES


AFC II Session 8: "False Flags: From 9/11 to Sandy Hook and Beyond"
                             


AFC II Session 9: Preston James, Ph.D., a social psychologist

from a Big Ten University, will address the importance of academic

research in an era dominated by propaganda from the mass media,

where academicians are failing to expose state-sponsored terrorism.


AFC II Session 10: Jim Fetzer, Ph.D., a philosopher of science, has

edited a series of books that investigate the moon landing hoax, the

atrocities of 9/11, the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, the FEMA drill at

Sandy Hook, the fakery in Boston, and other major state deceptions.



Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

10 comments:

  1. I do not think Professor Joy Karega’s “case” should automatically be taken as the real deal, that is, at face value, nor should any of the players in her play.
    I give serious consideration to the proposition that Professor Joy Karega is a totally scripted entity. While some parts, which parts we do not know, of Karega’s back story, her legend, are verifiably factual, I can see where employing this entity for Sunsteinian Neocon manipulations as a shill in regard to Dr. James Tracy’s legal case and USA academic First Amendment rights in general would be most useful to THEM.
    I use THEM and THEY to refer to Cass Sunstein-type shills and psy-operatives and crisis actors for their one world death and slavery system for all goals.

    I find it difficult to think like THEY think and operate. THEY employ sophisticated Tavistock strategies, game theory, and other forms of psychological manipulation.

    On the one hand, the set forth Professor Karega as someone THEY want academics to tout as having “a case” very similar to that of the real legal case of Dr. James Tracy. See
    http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2016/08/in-defense-of-unconventional-thoughts_6.html

    By the way, I assume Dr. Tracy has a very strong legal case and that he would and should win his legal case in court based strictly on the facts of his case.

    Dr. Tracy’s case IS NOT SIMILAR to “the case” of Dr. Karega though THEY certainly want it to appear that way and THEY want independent academics to point out and play up all the similarities.
    See
    http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2016/08/in-defense-of-unconventional-thoughts_6.html

    Dr. Karega is not a tenured professor, was not fired from her position, does not have and never has had a legal case against Oberlin, does not have a communications / journalism specialty, has never had an active high quality blog dealing with controversial issues and false events – again Dr. Tracy’s speciality -- only a now defunct brief Facebook presence, and Professor Karega has been apparently supported and exonerated regarding any ostensible threats against her academic free speech rights, her “case”, by the “practicing Jew” president Marvin Krislov of Oberlin.

    See
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/03/03/oberlin/

    I think one of the uses by THEM of an entity like Proessor Karega would be to somehow show and support how right and fair and balanced it is for Dr. James Casey’s legal case to be dismissed or go nowhere, if not outright be lost in a court judgment, by showing how Dr. Karega’s “similar case” was dealt with judiciously and properly by Oberlin’s president. Ergo the dismissal or decision against Dr. Tracy by the judge and court in Dr. Tracy’s case was likewise fair and balanced.

    The script by THEM included a Black female professor, a White male professor, and a Jewish professor of Oberlin College. Sunsteinian scripting par excellance!

    ReplyDelete
  2. JEANNON said:

    CORRECTION:

    CHANGE:

    "Dr. James Casey’s legal case"

    TO:

    Dr. James Tracy’s legal case

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great commentary, Jeannon. Thanks for posting this!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Carl Schmitt is not really the person Francis Doyle portrays him as. He was not enthusiastic at all about Nazism. And only at the very beginning in the early 1930's was any attention paid to him. His influence was minimal but after the war he had enemies who exaggerated things and he, I believe, was unjustly treated. There are a number of books available on the man which back up my position. I started off with the beliefs expressed by Dr Boyle but the readings changed my mind. He was way too smart to be a zealous Nazi!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Schmitt was an Aryan and Strauss was Jewish and was helped to come to America by Schmitt. So it seems to me that the Schmitt we are getting is a Straussian Schmitt. It would take a great deal of close scholarly work to untangle this. However, my intuition is that Schmitt is not the bad guy being portrayed.

      Delete
  5. GodSend, you are way over budget. Kindly remove at least half of these posts yourself and keep the ones you like the best. Otherwise, I or my moderator will do it ourselves. You have to acquire some self-restraint. You have gone far, far overboard. Make a few and quit unless someone responds, in which case you can reply one time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. He was rendering the comment section an unpleasant experience.

      Delete
  6. Before we toss Doktor Schmitt into the trash can we would do will to take note of the following two paragraphs from a very well done presentation of Schmitt's political philosophy at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy--http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schmitt/
    " Schmitt's understanding of the political provides the basis for his critique of liberalism (Holmes 1993, 37–60; McCormick 1997; Dyzenhaus 1997, 58–70; Kahn 2011). On a descriptive level, Schmitt claims that liberalism has a tendency to deny the need for genuine political decision, to suggest that it is neither necessary nor desirable for individuals to form groups that are constituted by the drawing of friend-enemy distinctions. Liberals believe that there are no conflicts among human beings that cannot be solved to everyone's advantage through an improvement of civilization, technology, and social organization or be settled, after peaceful deliberation, by way of amicable compromise. As a result, liberalism is unable to provide substantive markers of identity that can ground a true political decision. Liberal politics, consequently, boils down to the attempt to domesticate the polity, in the name of the protection of individual freedom, but it is unable to constitute political community in the first place (CP 69–79; CPD 33–50).

    If this is a correct account of the character of liberal ideology and of the aims of liberal politics, Schmitt is right to conclude that liberalism has a tendency to undermine a community's political existence, as he understands it. But in order for this observation to amount to a critique of liberalism, Schmitt needs to explain why a liberal subversion of the political would be undesirable. Schmitt's political works contain a number of rather different answers to this question. A first line of thought emphasizes, with appeal to Hobbes, that a state can only be legitimate as long as it retains the capacity to offer protection to its members (for Schmitt's engagement with Hobbes see McCormick 1994; Tralau 2011; and Schmitt's L; SM; VR). And a state that has suffered a subversion of the political, induced by liberal ideology, Schmitt argues, will be unable to offer protection to its members, because it will fail to protect them from the indirect rule of pluralist interest-groups that have successfully colonized the state (LL 17–36, L 65–77) and, more importantly, because it will lack the power to protect them from external enemies (CP 51–3). If a people is no longer willing to decide between friend and enemy the most likely result will not be eternal peace but anarchy or subjection to another group that is still willing to assume the burdens of the political. This first answer, however, is not Schmitt's last word on why liberal de-politicization is undesirable. Schmitt seems to admit that a global hegemon might one day be able to enforce a global de-politicization, by depriving all other communities of the capacity to draw their own friend-enemy distinctions, or that liberalism might one day attain global cultural hegemony, such that people will no longer be interested in drawing friend-enemy distinctions (CP 35, 57-8). Schmitt, then, cannot rest his case against liberal de-politicization on the claim that it is an unrealistic goal. He needs to argue that it is undesirable even if it could be achieved (Strauss 2007).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be very difficult to find a more accurate characterization of what is now obtaining in Europe than the above. Until we have a lucid picture of Germany, Europe and America from the early 1930's until the post WWII era we should be careful of condemning thinkers in Germany out of hand. If as Prof Fetzer believes the Holocaust is a mythical fact rather than an historical one, then our view of National Socialist Germany is going to be very distorted. We don't have to embrace Nazism but we do have to be more critical of the Allies and their hidden criminal activities.

      Delete
  7. Re: Dr. Fetzer's from 9/11 to Sandy Hook:
    Outstanding! Paradigm of evil-smashing! Armed with beaucoup, pristine facts and the sage reasoning necessary to demolish the SIM, the simulation, the false-flag drill, and pseudo-event that constitutes mass events posing as news on CIA-TV & Ink State channels and Wall Street-City of London news services. The impact of this presentation is the complete exposure of the pathological profile of the psychopathic, lunatic thugs and twisted worms we've been hosting in the White House and seats of government since 9/11.

    ReplyDelete