Saturday, December 30, 2017

Robert Crowley: 1963: JFK Assassination: A Confession of the CIA's Complicity

[Editor's Note: This section on "1963: JFK Assassination" comes from a lengthy piece published by Institute for the study of Globalization and Cover Politics (16 August 2014) by Joel v.d. Reijden as a revision of an earlier version by Gregory Douglas/Walter Storch. His account of the assassination of JFK amounts to a confession of the complicity of the agency. The conspiracy appears to have begun in Los Angeles when LBJ forced himself on the ticket with JFK. He admits that Lee Harvey Oswald was the patsy and had not fired a shot. My personal interactions with Gregory Douglas are documented at, where he claimed that the KGB had reconstructed the crime with a three-shot scenario, which is simply absurd. They, like the CIA, knew better.

Among the recent releases under The JFK Records Act is a Soviet intercept properly fingering Lyndon B. Johnson as responsible for the assassination of his predecessor, which is on the mark. The prefatory comments by Joel v.d. Reijden appear to have been intended to distract attention from the agency and back onto Lee Oswald, when we know he was standing in the doorway of the TSBD at the time. Reijden's prefatory comments give the attempt to spin away from the authenticity of what Crowley was reporting, where his notes are disinformation. Thus he adds these remarks, intended to mislead, by diminishing Crowley and his significance, denying the initial discovery of the Mauser and sketching the case against Oswald, which are significant indications of his role here:

          Crowley has spread A LOT of disinformation on Kennedy it appears:
The ZIPPER file is bogus. It mentions many of the right players, but Crowley appears to have been too junior in 1963 to have played the central role he claims to have had. He has done this on other occasions: putting the blame on himself/taking credit for operations his superiors ran.

Gregory Douglas' Kennedy book 'Regicide' from 2002 contains little of the following insights, except for the disinformation. And what it contains, is certainly not spelled out in such a clear manner as here allegedly by Crowley.

The whole Kennedy-Bolshakov connection that Crowley sometimes brings up seems to be blown way out of proportion to rationalize the killing of JFK.

The Mauser appears to be disinformation by the Dallas police in charge of assassination scene.

Oswald most definitely was not just a patsy and most likely it was not a coincidence he ended up working for D.H. Byrd's TSBD a month before the assassination. Throughout the years the CIA appears to have moved him around non-stop. Also: Oswald was the only one not seen immediately before and during the shooting, the only one to run, etc. He was still undercover/in role after his arrest when demanding a communist lawyer. Oswald had a lot to do with the assassination, but that doesn't change the fact that there was a second shooter. [Editor's note: But there were six or more shooters, who fired from eight to ten shots (possibly more), with at least four (and possibly five) hits to the target:
Richard Sprague, Computers and Automation (May 1970), expanded

1963: JFK assassination

"All the stories about mysterious tramps, men with umbrellas, men in the sewer, fake epileptics throwing convenient fits and so on are just smoke and mirrors. All the mob bosses, Cuban exiles, rich Texas oilmen, Richard Nixon and anyone else suggested either couldn't or wouldn't have tried to shoot Kennedy. You see, we had Hoover and the Johnson people in our camp. With these, we could shut off any inconvenient revelations at any time. And we have iron influence, let's call it, with the major media so no worry there. We have various retrospective television programs, usually somewhere around November 22 each year that rehash all the idiot stories and I watch them with great humor. Beats 'I Love Lucy' for real humor. ... We're responsible for a lot of that. ... [Editor's note: They were "smoke and mirrors" as distractions from the execution of the assassination by the CIA in complicity with the Secret Service, the Joint Chiefs, LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover.]

"Angleton was a first class counter intelligence man and very dedicated. And he discovers that the most important intelligence reports, the President's daily briefings from the CIA, are ending up in Moscow. Within a week of them being given to the President. A week. And this was not a one-time incident but had been going on for some time. We then tried to find out how this was happening. ... Anyway, they found out that Bobby was talking to the Commie [Bolshakov] on the phone from his home so we, and Hoover, tapped his phone. Hoover didn't know we were doing it too, but that's Washington politics for you. And we heard, for sure, that Bobby was sending thermofax copies of this report to him. I mean, there was no question. And, we learned too that Kennedy was keeping in direct contact with Khrushchev by Bobby and the Russian. I mean they were subverting the entire diplomatic system and God alone knows what Kennedy was talking about. ... And that is where the decision was made to simply get rid of Kennedy. He was too independent, he had sacked Dulles and Bissell over the Cuban thing and threatened to [Mike] Mansfield to break the Agency up. And here he was giving our worst enemy top secret inside information. I mean, it really wasn't open to discussion. You can see this all, can't you? ... Kennedy was committing the treason, not us. It was he and his vile brother who were passing our most sensitive and secret documents to our enemies. What were we to do? Confront him? We'd all be fired, or worse. What choice was there? Tell me that. ...

"We were certainly determined to stop him from breaking the CIA up as he was seriously planning, and the Army was determined to have its profitable [Vietnam] war and then there were the business people and the Mafia in the wings. ... But the unforgivable sin as far as Kennedy was concerned was his going around us and establishing a personal contact with Nikita Khrushchev. Not done. All Presidents had to use us [always forgets to mention the State Department, which would be diplomacy above his head] as firewalls or contacts. Presidents had to rely on us for their information and what would come of it if they dealt directly with some hostile head of state? This would erode our power and essentially relegate the CIA to being mere messengers. The power? As keepers of the flame, others had to bow to our power but if we lost that power, all of us would be back on the chicken farm. That was the final straw, believe me. ...

"After Kennedy was dead, our agency would reveal to all the world that the Russians had plotted this and then Johnson would order a surprise nuclear attack on them. ...

That was a sort of afterthought [nuking Russia]. Angleton hated the Russians and he did know that the Kennedy people were in touch with the KGB and Khrushchev people, so he went from there. [note: later at the American Security Council, loaded with people who thought a first-strike nuclear war with Russia was winnable] You might say that Jim was the sparkplug on that engine, right along. ...

"The Kennedy family were living in a dream world their father had convinced them was real. Power can come from money, Gregory, but power has to include working with others who also have power. Dictators cannot function with powerful barons too close. Either kill them or replace them with ciphers. No other choice. So in a sense, Kennedy was going from bad to worse and plots were being hatched all over the place during the last year of his reign. ...

"Oh yes, ... the mob [was] out to get Kennedy, because of his brother's attacks on them, ordered by Joe, the ex-bootlegger. Listen, we had the cooperation of the leadership of the FBI, who would have the lead in the investigation, but the mob would not, and if that ever got out, Hoover would have to clean their respective clocks for them. No, in spite of their hatred of him, they would never have done such a thing. ...

"[The anti-Castro Cubans were] emotional enough and after they felt Kennedy had deserted them during the Bay of Pigs disaster. They had plenty of motive, but no opportunity and emotional as they are, they would boast and Hoover's men would have nailed them. ...

"I know people in the Chicago mob and as much as they detested Kennedy, and they did get him elected by voting every cemetery early and often, they are far too smart to even try to kill a sitting president. ... Meyer Lansky was a very smart man and the same I said about the Chicago mob would hold true for him and his boys: they wished Kennedy dead, but let someone else do it. ... [And] Castro is not a stupid man and even though it leaked out, on purpose of course, that we were trying to kill him, Castro did not have the connections to reverse the attacks on him. Like the mob and others, he was not sad to see Kennedy killed, but had nothing to do with any real plotting. ... [Editor's note: Representatives of JFK and of Fidel were meeting in Paris to discuss the normalization of relations when the assassination took place. Castro and Khrushchev were both profoundly saddened by this stunning turn of events, one of many differences that he would have made had he lived.]

Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), analyzed the perfect conspiracy

"And I can recall that when Hoover learned of our house cleaning project, he jumped on board with the caveat that we also get rid of Bobby. John hated Bobby… Yes, Colonel John Edgar. Franklin made him a Colonel but Hoover was pissed off that he wasn't made a general at least so he never used the title, but it was there. Anyway, we had no problem with Hoover because Bobby was telling his staff that Hoover was a fairy and John Edgar didn't like that and when Bobby dug into Hoover's past and discovered relatives as black as the ace of spades, he got livid with rage.

"Killing a sitting President is never easy and one has to move with great care in such matters. Too much talking at the wrong time and in the wrong place can wreck even the most ambitious plans. We knew what had to be done and the opening gambits were to secure the agreement of other power brokers. We got [vice president] Johnson on board through the good offices of Abe Fortis, who would have sold the rotting corpse of his dead mother to the dog food people if they paid him enough. LBJ was a pill in the box in that he had some knowledge and lusted for the Oval Office. And again, Bobby was an irritant by calling him 'Uncle Cornpone' all over the Beltway. Johnson was used to power and did not like being ignored and marginalized so he smiled and kept quiet.

"We certainly had Hoover and some of the top people in the Pentagon, the full support of the mob and a few other necessary organizations. The Mafia could get their gambling halls back again [with] a dead Bobby who was having his fun persecuting the very people who put his brother in the Oval Office. ... We all need friends, Gregory, and the AGs deliberately harassing the Mafia in Chicago was very, very unwise. I point out that Jack Ruby was one of their enforcers there. Dare I say more? ...

"Oswald had nothing to do with the business. [Editor's note: Lee had been recruited by ONI as a recruit in San Diego, conducted a pseudo-defection to the Soviet Union at the bequest of the CIA, and was working as an informant for the FBI at the time. He was standing in the doorway of the TSBD at the time the motorcade passed by. He did not fire a shot.] Nothing at all. He was an asset of ONI and he worked for both of us at Atsugi. That's our U-2 base in Japan. He spoke Russian, after a fashion, and was instructed to act like a Marxist to rope in some Jap spies there. A clever young man but a bit of a trouble maker. No, Oswald had nothing to do with it. I said we had used him once and we had a dossier on him. He was perfect for the role of patsy. Married the niece of a top MVD officer, an avowed Marxist and so on. And, joy of joys, he worked at the book building. We had the presidential cavalcade rerouted to go right past it to be certain. And we had a resource in the Cuban Embassy in Mexico who swore Oswald was in there trying to flee to Cuba. It does pay to have people in the right place, Gregory. Never know when you might need them.

"The Mauser belonged to the wrong people so the other piece was substituted. [Editor's note: Crowley once again has it right and a note by Reijden--that this was disinformation and that the gun at the TSBD appears to have been a Carcano from the start--is meant to reinforce the official account. ]

We made sure that could be traced to him. And we got the wife to admit seeing the wop gun. Of course in her condition, she would identify a crossbow or a polar bear. ...

Poor idiot. Jesus, what a wife! First class bitch. Thought Lee was a millionaire and when she came here, she would strike it rich. Turned out she lived in a slum and she had to put up with a loudmouth husband and then got stuck with a kid. No wonder she did what we told her. ... Later, they got Oswald's bitch of a wife, being deposed, and two phony Russian translators who would claim that she had seen the very rifle in Russia. Of course that was a .22 target rifle and the one we planted was the cheap wop piece with a cheaper scope so that one went out.

"Oswald knew a little too much, just a little, but enough. And he could prove he never shot Kennedy. So he had to go before he started to talk. Oswald knew some of our people and he worked directly for ONI, so there were dangers there. ... Oswald had nothing to do with the business but was involved in other things for us. If he came to trial, very ugly things could have come out and we couldn't control a courtroom scene. Better to insure it never went that far.

"Ruby was from the Chicago mob and I had connections with them through my father. [They] got him to do a job on Oswald. ... Ruby had cancer and knew he was probably going to die soon enough so he was put up to silencing Oswald. Oswald was not involved and if it ever went to trial, it would all come out. The Navy didn't want it to come out that they hired him and the FBI didn't want it out that he had worked for them, so everyone was happy when Ruby did his deed in the basement. Of course later, he found out they might execute him instead of letting him die comfortably in a Dallas hospital, so he got alarmed and was trying to get out of it. ... The locals were going to try him and he was starting to sweat the electric chair so he threatened to talk. ... I don't know why, Gregory. He knew all about keeping quiet, but he was ... very emotional - not stable. ... Certainly [we killed him]. Ruby died of rampant cancer. As you are aware, Gregory, we can give people fatal heart attacks and cancer is only a little more difficult and problematical. A medical examination, an injection with cells and so on. Ask a good oncologist. It is possible to do this. It takes more time but what did Ruby have? There was no immediate danger of him blabbing so we pacified him with stories of last minute rescues and let him die. [Editor's note: Judyth Vary Baker recounts her recruitment to work on the development of a rapid-acting cancer in New Orleans with David Ferrie and Lee Oswald under the supervision of Dr. Mary Sherman in her book, Me and Lee (2011).]

"Jerry [Gerald] Ford was no threat. A wonderfully cooperative man, Jerry was. During the Warren Commission, he called up old Hoover every night with the latest confidential dirt. No, Jerry was no problem. And the peanut farmer was too self-righteous to bother with and harmless. ...

"No, I did not hate Kennedy. Kennedy came from a family that was as crooked as a dog's hind leg. His father was a rum-runner and a whore monger and vicious as hell. Jack wasn't so bad but he couldn't keep it in his pants and used drugs in the White House. And enough of him for the time being." 

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota. His most recent summation of the assassination was presented on The Brian Ruhe Show, "JFK: Who was responsible and why", integrating the new proofs advanced by Larry Rivera that Lee was indeed standing in the doorway of the TSBD and not only could not have been "the lone gunman" but cannot have fired a shot. 

Robert Crowley: Early 1950s: Operation Mockingbird: Taking Control of the Media

[Editor's Note: This section on "Early 1950s: Mockingbird: Taking control of the media" comes from a lengthy piece published by Institute for the study of Globalization and Cover Politics (16 August 2014) by Joel v.d. Reijden as a revision of an earlier version by Gregory Douglas/Walter Storch. His discussion of Operation Mockingbird appears to be well-founded, where Reijden attempts to spin his further confession of the complicity of the CIA in the assassination of JFK--which I shall discuss in a sequel--as though it were not. Robert Crowley was revealing too much truth about the agency and its role in the death of our 35th president, which Reijden appears to have been doing his best to deflect.]

Early 1950s: Mockingbird: Taking control of the media

"Ben Bradlee was the managing editor of the Washington Post and was our man all the way. ... Ben's best friend when he was a child was [later CIA director] Dick Helms. After Ben left Harvard during the war, he joined ONI and worked in their communications center. ... Not generally known, however: war was over and Ben was sent to join the ACLU as a spy. ... [Later] Ben was off to France where he worked in the embassy in Paris where he did propaganda work and started working very closely with us. Then he went to work for Newsweek. Ben is an ambitious type and he ditched the Saltonstall woman and married Toni Pinchot. Her sister, Mary, was married to Cord Meyer, our beloved Cyclops...

Bill Bradlee and his best childhood friend, Richard Helms

"I had to deal with the media for years. Cord [Meyer of the CIA] and [CIA/OPC boss] Frank [Wisner] did the publishing companies and I worked with media corporate. We had a death grip on them. Couldn't and wouldn't print a word if we told them not to or ran puff pieces we wanted out. ...

"I can guarantee that the press will either keep very, very quiet about you or will make a fool out of you. We still do control the press and if we say to trash an enemy, they will do it. And if the editor won't, we always talk to the publishers. Or, more effective, one of my business friends threatens to pull advertising from the rag. That's their Achilles heel, Gregory. No paper can survive on subscription income alone. The ads keep it going. In the old days, a word from me about ad-pulling made even the most righteous editor back down in a heartbeat. We bribe the reporters and terrify their bosses. They talk about the free press who know nothing about the realities. ...

"We control most of the major publishers or if we don't, they would never dare to put out anything that would get us upset. Hell, we have our man right there in the New York Times and they jump through the hoops, believe me. The Times is in our pocket absolutely. Of course for silence, we give them inside stories. Sometimes, Gregory, the stories are actually true. Can you believe that? ...

"We always wanted to emulate Colonel [Edgar] Hoover's good PR. You know, the Hollywood and radio dramas about the wonderful G-Men. I think we established a far more effective system but then, of course, I am prejudiced. Before we were finished, we had our fingers in every pot imaginable from the major media to book companies, television networks and so on. ... We infiltrated our people into every level of the business, political and professional worlds and you never knew when one of your people might bring home the bacon. I can say with some pride that, let’s say, we wanted to get some legislation passed, it was a piece of cake. ...

J. Edgar Hoover (right) with his close personal friend, Clyde Tolson (c. 1939)

"We had to cover up failures as well. I think you can say that the Company [CIA] pretty well controls the media in this country now. Take the AP for example. Every little jerkwater paper out in East Jesus, Texas, cannot have a reporter in Washington or Moscow so they rely almost entirely on the AP for anything outside their town. I mean if a cow waders out onto the highway and wrecks a truck or the local grange burns down, sure they have the local reporters, but for what's going on in Washington or elsewhere, it's the AP.

"Look, you get on a plane in New York bound for, say, Chicago. You read the paper and then stuff it into the seat pocket and get off. In Chicago, you pick up the Tribune and read it. Same national and international news. Fly to [San] Frisco and the same thing. The AP is a wonderful asset, believe me. Let's say you want to put a story about

that a certain foreign potentate is about to get kicked out. Or better, you want him kicked out. So, we plant a story with the New York Times, the Washington Post or other big papers and then get AP to send our special message all over the damned country. Let's say we start in the night before. By the six o'clock news the next day, all of America knows just what we want it to know and we do this so anyone reading an article can only come to the conclusions we want. ...

"Oh yes, [as said,] the paper out in Podunk, Kansas is not controlled but all it talks about are whose cow won a prize at the state fair and how the local football team is doing. No, those papers are not controlled because no one but a bunch of hicks read them. But the AP, all the major papers, magazines, publishing houses and television people are under tight control. ... The media is owned by corporations. ...

Corporations control the media. If some article injures any one of them, or has the potential to do so, the article ends up in the trash along with the reporter. I know the New York Times does just what we wish them to do, print what we wish them to print and kill off any story we tell them to. Besides, we control the AP and all across the country, many of the national and international news stories come directly from the AP. ...

"If something gets loose, who will publish it? Surely not our boys in the media. A book publisher? A joke, Gregory. Never. ... One thing [the CIA's Frank] Wisner did was to build up a very cooperative media and that includes book publishers. ... Even if some big [publishing] house printed [a sensitive book], it would never see the light of day. Why? Because our people would block it. It's that simple. They would ruin you as they have ruined many other authors who have gone before you for daring to speak ill of them. Can you imagine the New York Times reviewing it? I think not. I think not ever. One phone call from us and into the wastebasket with any kind of commentary, good or bad. Gregory, the blanket of silence would descend upon you, believe me. Silly idealists somehow believe we have a free press here, but it is as tightly controlled as it is in Russia or it was in Hitler's Germany. ...

"Your publisher is not big enough to reach too many people and a bigger one would be told right off not to talk to you. I also might suggest several things to you. If anyone tries to come to visit you, and they want to bring a friend, don't go for it. ... The so-called friend would be a government expert [there to look at your papers]. ... And one other thing, if you get a very nice offer from some publisher you never heard of, just begging you to let them publish, be warned that they would take the manuscript, send it to Langley and if Langley thought it was dangerous, give you a contract to publish it along with a token payment. Of course they would never publish it but since they paid you and had a contract to publish, you could never find another publisher. They'd get a court order in record time, blocking it. Just some advice. ...

"You're not a Company man, Gregory. They'll do everything they can to keep you out of print. Threaten any prospective publisher with dire financial problems and believe me, not one article about you or your book will ever appear in any American newspaper or on any American television talk show. And I mean ever. They'll put a blackout on you. And I can assure you that even as I speak, [the CIA's] Jim [Critchfield] is gathering in all kinds of government informers to write terrible things about you ...

A brilliant expose from the son of a CIA official involved in both assassinations

"Let us say that you write a newspaper article on what I just told you. It would never get published and within minutes of you submitting it to an editor, we would be notified. ... No, [they would] trash you. Laugh at you. Get our little broken down academics to piss on you. The press would ignore you completely and eventually, you would find something else to do. Now, on the other hand, if you had been one of us and had inside knowledge and worse, proof, you would perish very quickly. ... But as an outsider, just laughter and silence. ... We would look into your tax records and turn the IRS loose on you or let your wife know you were boffing a nice waitress at a cheap local motel. Or one of your nice children would be introduced to dangerous drugs . ... Rather than off some snoop, it's much more subtle to marginalize them in print, imply they are either liars or nuts and make fun of them. Discredit them so no one will listen to them and [maybe] later, the car runs over them in the crosswalk. Oh, sorry about that, officer, but my foot slipped off the brake. I am desolated by that. And we pay for fixing the front end of his car. ...

"I developed H&K [Hill & Knowlton] as a purely captive asset... One of my jobs with the company was to keep up our connections with major business and H&K was my baby. ... We used them to plant our own agents all over the world. It is a wonderful cover. We have some of the major columnists, of course, and many editors and more than a few publishers, but putting our own agents in, say, in France or Ottawa, is a great advantage, believe me. And H&K had the best, the very best, connections.

Bobby Gray [Robert Keith Gray] was Ike's [Eisenhower's] press secretary and was a good friend of Nixon and Reagan and had their ear. ... Not only H&K, but a number of other firms have been of inestimable help to us. They plant stories we want planted, they open offices in foreign countries of interest and let our men come in as employees and so on. The PR people can move mountains. [Howard] Paster, who not only worked for H&K, but also the Clintons, worked with Bill's people to neutralize the Lewinski scandal which was really not political but religious in nature. The right wing Christians, who are as crazy as shit house owls, wanted Clinton's scalp so they could put one of their own pro-Jesus nuts in the White House. ...

"Never [will there be made accurate movies about these subjects], Gregory, I can promise you that. A [movie] studio that even considered this would be bankrupt within a few months. No, none of this will ever see the light of day and if you want to continue walking around, remember that silence is golden."

Monday, December 25, 2017

Dr. Eowyn: A "Politically Correct" Christmas Story

[Note: This “Politically-Correct Christmas Story” is my revised version of the story that a faithful FOTM reader, pnordman, sent me years ago. She passed away on April 21, 2015. This post is dedicated to her memory.]

And Joseph went up from Galilee to Bethlehem with Mary, his cisgender wife, who was great with child. And she brought forth a son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn.

And an Angel of the Lord spoke to the shepherds and said, “I bring you tidings of great joy. Unto you is born a Savior, which is Christ ” — because we don’t want to imply that God is male.

“There’s a problem with the angel,” said a Pharisee who happened to be strolling by. As he explained to Joseph, angels are widely regarded as religious symbols, and the stable was on public property where such symbols were not allowed to land or even hover.
“Also, I have to tell you, this whole thing looks to me very much like a Nativity scene,” the Pharisee said sadly. “That’s a no-no, too.”
Joseph had a bright idea. Eager to avoid sectarian strife, he said, “What if I put a couple of reindeer over there near the ox and ass?”.
“That would definitely help,” said the Pharisee. “Just to clinch it, throw in a candy cane and a couple of elves and snowmen, too. No court can resist that.”
Mary asked, “What does my son’s birth, here in Bethlehem, have to do with snowmen?”
“Snowpersons,” cried a young woman, changing the subject before it veered dangerously toward religion.
Off to the side of the crowd, a Philistine was painting the Nativity scene. Mary complained that she and Joseph looked too tattered and worn in the picture.
“Artistic license,” he said. “I’ve got to show the plight of the haggard homeless in a greedy, uncaring society in winter.”
“We’re not haggard or homeless. The inn was just full,” said Mary. “Furthermore, why is there a languid homoerotically-posed naked man in the Nativity scene?”

The painter said, “He signifies the social justice of clothing the naked!”.
Some bystanders began to protest fiercely.
A transgender said he objected to Jesus’ birth because it implies only women can give birth. A feminist objected to Mary’s virginity because it oppresses women by setting an impossibility high bar for women. Yet another argued that Mary, finding herself pregnant out of wedlock, should have had an abortion because “abortion is a blessing“.

An animal right activist objected to the use of oxen and sheep as picturesque backdrops for the Nativity scene because it carries the subliminal message of human dominance. He passed out two leaflets, one denouncing manger births as invasions of animal space, the other arguing that stables are “penned environments” where animals are incarcerated against their will.

Then a team of child protection advocates descended on the scene, all trained to spot infant abuse and manger rash. The Holy Family were pushed to the edge of the crowd.
Someone said the halo on Jesus’ head was elitist.
Mary became exasperated. To an elderly woman who joined the jabbering mob, she exclaimed, “And what about you? Are you here to attack the shepherds as prison guards for excluded species, maybe to complain that singing in Latin identifies us with our Roman oppressors, or just to say that I should have skipped patriarchal religiosity and joined some new-age goddess religion?”
“None of the above,” said the woman, “I just wanted to tell you that the Magi are here.”
Sure enough, the three wise men rode up.
The crowd gasped, “They’re all male!” and “Not very multicultural!”
“Balthasar here is black,” said one of the Magi.
“Yes, but how many of you are gay or transgender or disabled?” someone shouted.
A committee was quickly formed to find a black, impoverished, but wise lesbian among the halt and lame of Bethlehem.
A calm voice said, “Be of good cheer, Mary, you have done well and your son will change the world.”
At last, a sane person, Mary thought. She turned to see the overly made-up face of a transvestite.
The transvestite spoke again: “There is one thing, though. Religious holidays are important, but can’t we learn to celebrate them in ways that unite, not divide? For instance, instead of all this business about ‘Gloria in excelsis Deo,’ why not just ‘Season’s Greetings’?”

Mary said, “You mean my son has entered human history to deliver the message, ‘Hello, it’s winter’?”
“That’s harsh, Mary,” said the transvestite. “Remember, your son could make it big in midwinter festivals, if he doesn’t push the religion thing too far. Centuries from now, in nations yet unborn, people will go into debt by giving each other pricey gifts and get drunk in office parties on his birthday!”
And so,  LGBTQPs and multiple genders, that’s how Christmas, the Birthday of Christ, became the politically-correct generic “Happy Holidays” we have today.


Dr. Eowyn, Ph.D., professor emeritus of political science at a U.S. university and author of university press books and countless peer-reviewed articles, maintains the site,

Saturday, December 23, 2017

For Christmas: Why We Need MORE Conspiracy Theorists!



No public relations effort in the 20th century has rivaled that of the CIA attacking critics of The Warren Report (1964) as "conspiracy theorists" in a memorandum of April 1967, implying that, unless those speaking out knew everything there was to know about what happened to JFK, they should not be taken seriously, which is, of course, completely absurd. The early critics of the government's "official account" of the assassination, such as Mark Lane, Jim Garrison and David Lifton, among others, were observing that the narrative the public was given could not withstand critical scrutiny. That the critics are right and the reports are wrong has been characteristically distorted by assuming that what we are being told by the government must be true. 

The CIA's public relations campaign has now been extend to the mainstream press, which the agency long since targeted for infiltration through "Operation Mockingbird", where, as early as 1975, its Director, William Colby, testified to Congress that "the agency owns everyone of significance in the media". The alternative media did not exist at the time, but has emerged as a significant source of (what we ought to call ) "inconvenient truths" that the government wants to suppress, lest it should lose such credibility as it may retain in the eyes and ears of the public through virtually endless propaganda and disinformation via newspapers, magazines and especially television.

Conspiracy theorists have received a bad rap, which has extended to studies by psychologists and philosophers that suggest those who embrace "conspiracy theories" suffer from cognitive deficits, such as a need for closure or the incapacity to accept that sometimes minor causes (such as "a lone, demented gunman") can bring about major effects (such as a change in the politics of the United States). Properly understood, however, "conspiracy theorists" turn out to be more intelligent and open-minded and less gullible than those who attack and ridicule them, which today includes most of the CIA-controlled media. This is not an opinion but a fact. It turns out to be a matter of methodology. 

Americans Believe in Conspiracy Theories

In a recent study, "Majority of Americans Believe in 9/11 Conspiracies", OCWeekly (28 October 2016), Chapman University reported that a majority of Americans "can find common ground in the belief that the government is concealing information about 9/11". According to its research, close to 55% believe that there was more to the 9/11 attacks than the government has revealed to the public, where those who believe that was a coverup in the assassination of JFK at 50% runs closely behind. The following chart provides a graphical representations of their findings, where Chapman is conducing annual reviews:

Conspiracies are as American as apple pie. They only require two or more individuals collaborating together to bring about an illegal act. What may strike many as odd about the percentage regarding 9/11 is that even the official account, which posited the attacks as the work of 19 Islamic terrorists, qualifies as a "conspiracy theory", which suggests that, if this were a measure of the percentage who believe 9/11 was a conspiracy, it ought to be closer to 100%. It therefore appears to be measuring not whether 9/11 was a conspiracy as such but whether agencies of the government, such as the CIA, were involved, In other words, "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?", for which there exists abundant evidence.

Distorted Conceptions of Conspiracy Theories

Some attempts to deal with conspiracy theories are hopelessly inadequate and display gross misrepresentations. The study, "Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories", Cognition (December 2014), which has four authors, actually defines "conspiracy theories" as "a subset of false beliefs in which the ultimate cause of an event is believed to be due to a plot by multiple actors working together with a clear goal in mind, often unlawfully and in secret".  By that definition, a conspiracy theory about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, for example, cannot possibly be true, even though four of the co-conspirators were hung from the same gallows at the same time.

An slightly less absurd conception may be found in a “tip sheet” for college course, which declares that, The main problem with any particular conspiracy theory is not that it's wrong, but that it's inarguable; not that it's false, but that it is unfalsifiable. Because it is unfalsifiable, a conspiracy theory is not provable or disprovable.” But it turns out that conspiracies (to commit murder, to commit fraud and so forth) is the most widely prosecuted crime in the United States. If those theories ("theories of those cases") were unfalsifiable, then no one accused of a conspiracy would ever be able to defend themselves against the charge, no matter how strong their alibis or how weak the evidence against them.

A more interesting study, “’What about Building 7?’ A social psychological study of online discussion of9/11 conspiracy theories”, Frontiers of Psychology (8 July 2013), by comparison, suggests that those who are most often characterized as “conspiracy theorists” are more skeptical regarding what they are told by the government (“official accounts”) than they are enamored of specific alternatives and are more open-minded in the interpretation of evidence. They are less inclined to defer to officials as authorities and are more inclined to look at the evidence, which even hints that there may be a deep methodological difference in attitude between conspiracy theorists and other American citizens, where conspiracy theorists are more skeptical and less gullible regarding government reports. And this appears to hold the key.

Confirmationalism vs. Falsificationism

The difference lies between a confirmationalist approach (looking for confirming instances of an hypothesis or of a theory) and a falsificationist approach (searching for dis-confirming instances, if they exist). As a trivial example, the hypothesis, "All pennies are copper", has billions of confirming instances. But, as those who have searched for dis-confirming instances are aware, in spite of billions of confirming instances, it turns out to be false--because in 1943, when copper was in short supply and needed for military purposes, pennies were instead made out of steel. A single counter example can prove an hypothesis to be false. But, unless you search for them, you are unlikely to find them, where the failure to find them when you undertake an aggressive search properly supports them.

Karl Popper, the British philosopher of science, emphasized the importance of attempts to falsify hypotheses, where only evidence acquired during attempts to falsify ought to count as evidenced in favor of a theory. It's a bit technical, but "the raven paradox" of Carl G. Hempel, exemplifies the problem. The hypothesis, "All ravens are black" ("All pennies are copper", and so on), has been interpreted by logicians as having the same meaning as, "Everything is either not-a-raven or black" ("Everything is either not-a-penny or its copper", and so forth). If you assume that an instance of an hypothesis confirms it and that hypotheses that say the same thing are confirmed by the same instances, then non-ravens (or non-pennies), such as white shoes, turn out to confirm them (both).

A falsificationist would respond that testing hypotheses and theories requires more than the passive acceptance of confirming instances, which must be displaced by the active search for dis-confirming evidence. To test for the color of ravens (the composition of pennies and such), you have to conduct observations, measurements and experiments on ravens (on pennies and such). Or, in the case of historical events (such as JFK, 9/11, Sandy Hook and more), falsificationism would have us evaluate the authenticity of the evidence on which the government's accounts are based. Sorting out the difference between authentic and inauthentic evidence plays a crucial role in separating true or well-founded narratives from false or fictional ones. But it can also require levels of expertise that are not common in the general population, which is why those with special backgrounds and abilities need to become involved. The assassination of John F. Kennedy provides a perfect illustration.  

What happened to JFK?

Research JFK provides a stunning exemplification of the power of falsificationist methodology. As serious students of the assassination are aware, for 30 years an apparent difference between witness reports of a blow-out to the back of his head has stood in conflict with the autopsy X-rays, which do not show it. On that basis, the witness reports have been discounted by the government. In 1992, however, David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., board certified in radiation oncology and an expert on the interpretation of X-rays, entered the National Archives with the permission of Burke Marshall, the Kennedy family attorney, to examine the autopsy materials, including the X-rays. Applying a technique known as "optical densitometry", he was able to delineate an area "P" where the X-ray had been patched: 

This finding, in turn, provided evidence that the home movies of the assassination, including the most famous, the Zapruder film, had been altered to conceal the same blow out at the back of the head. It occurred to me that the perps preoccupation with early frames 314-317, for example, might have led them to overlook that it might be visible in later frames, where I found it was observable in Frame 374. And when Mantik's delineation of "Area P" was compared with Frame 374, the correspondence between them was striking, which thereby confirmed his research and demonstrated that the Zapruder film had been altered by covering up the blow out when it should have been visible in earlier frames: 

Remarkably, the Bethesda Autopsy Report describes a much larger wound, where virtually the whole back of the cranium is missing. And, as though that were not astonishing enough, when the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), which re-investigated the case in 1977-79 issued its Final Report (1979), it had contracted the massive missing back of the head to a small wound of entry at the top of the head, inexplicably failing to account for the enormous discrepancy--which illustrates that, even when the government undertakes a re-investigation of a case of this magnitude, that does not mean that its outcome will be a closer approximation to the truth than the original--where we encounter the anomalous situation that there are three entire different descriptions of the back-of-the-head wound:

Without adopting the methodology of testing an hypothesis by attempting to refute it, the authenticity of the X-rays would have remained unchallenged. David Mantik has now visited the National Archives ten times and had determined that none of the official autopsy X-rays of JFK is even an original. And more recent studies (published on this blog) have confirmed that Lee Oswald was framed using backyard photographs with a Dallas Police Officer (with ties to the CIA) as his body double, that Lee was actually standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository at the time the motorcade passed by (and therefore not only cannot have been "the lone gunman" but not even one of the shooters) and that the body seen in Bethesda autopsy photos is not even that of JFK.

We need more Conspiracy Theorists

Composing an end-of-the-year review of the most important stories of 2017, I was rather stunned that only three of the stories--the NFL protest, the sexual-harassment scandals, and Trump's decision to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem--were honest stories and that the other seven--including the New York car and truck attacks, an update on the Boston bombing, the latest on Sandy Hook, exposing the orchestrated events in Charlottesville and the elaborate Las Vegas production--concerned events that were staged or faked by the government with state and local authorities. Even the Russiagate scandal, about which we have heard so much for well over a year now, was invented out of whole cloth by Robbie Mook and John Podesta within 24-hours of Hillary's concession speech for multiple motives, including to divert attention from her own entanglements in selling 20% of our uranium reserves to Russia:

But don't take my word for it. You can test these conclusions as well, where they are subject to revision with the acquisition of new evidence and alternative hypotheses. My colleagues and I are not infallible and are capable of making mistakes. But one of the virtues of collaborative research is that we serve as checks-and-balances on each other's conclusions. Discerning the difference between the TRUE and the FALSE, however, only matters if you want to know what's really going on. If you are content to sleepwalk though history, never knowing whether your beliefs reflect reality or not, then you may make your way from birth to death without ever knowing the difference. 

That's your choice. Most Americans so busy getting food on the table and keeping a roof over head that they have neither the time nor the inclination to evaluate what they are seeing and hearing and reading in the newspapers and on television. Many suffer from cognitive dissonance and don't really want to know that their own government--which they want to believe protects and serves them--has taken out its own executive officer and has committed real and fabricated atrocities to promote its political agenda--regardless of the consequences for the public. Even lots of faculty at colleges and universities are overly timid and unwilling to address the most pressing issues of our time. We are in a desperate plight in the United States, where the dark night of tyranny continues to descend upon this once-great nation. We can use all the help we can get. 

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota. He wrote his undergraduate thesis at Princeton for Carl G. Hempel and dedicated his first book, Scientific Knowledge (1981), to Sir Karl Popper.

Thursday, December 21, 2017

The Death of Academic Freedom: Prof James Tracy Denied First Amendment Rights by Federal Court

Vivian Lee

On December 11, 2017, in a serious miscarriage of justice, a jury in West Palm Beach, Florida, ruled unanimously in favor of Florida Atlantic University and against former Media Studies Professor James Tracy, who was suing for reinstatement after his firing in 2016. The jury found that Tracy’s “controversial” articles on Memory Hole Blog were not a “motivating factor” in his firing, the only question they were required to consider. Of course, Tracy’s posts at “his conspiracy theory blog” were indeed the reason he was fired, but the jury was convinced otherwise by FAU’s legal team with assistance from the judge. The case centered around Tracy’s writings on the anomalies found in the reporting on the Sandy Hook “massacre” of December 14, 2012. His skepticism about the event was not to the liking of the university.

Palm Beach Post 
 James Tracy with his attorney Louis Leo IV arriving at federal court. Image: Palm Beach Post.

FAU maintained that Tracy was not fired from his tenured position because of his blog posts, but because he did not follow the “rules” set out by “his bosses” at the government-run institution. FAU attorney G. Joseph Curley insisted that Tracy was not denied his First Amendment rights, but that he simply did not follow university procedure. “Professor Tracy doesn’t follow the rules,” Curley told the jury. “They’re rules that everyone else follows. He doesn’t play by the rules.” FAU cast the case as one of a “belligerent,” rebellious,” and “nonconformist” employee being let go for “insubordination,” instead of that of a tenured professor exercising his right to free speech.[1]

Atty G Joseph Curley Palm Beach Post 
 FAU attorney G. Joseph Curley: “I could not be happier for FAU.” Image: Palm Beach Post.

FAU’s current “rules” require that faculty submit forms listing “outside activities” to be vetted for administrative approval, whether the activities are compensated or not. Tracy and other professors at FAU had argued that the policy is vague and confusing, constituting a form of prior restraint forbidden by the First Amendment, and leading to a climate of “fear and uncertainty” among the faculty. Aside from the fact that “outside activities” can reach into all aspects of a professor’s life and therefore be difficult if not impossible to list, such activities must not be subject to bureaucratic approval. And certainly, no tenured professor can be fired for not filling out a form, even at Florida Atlantic University.[2]

Tenure and academic freedom 

The reason for tenure at academic institutions is precisely to allow professors to research, write, and speak out without fear of reprisal. The road to tenure is long and difficult, embarked upon with the goal of attaining the “academic freedom” that tenured professors enjoy.[3] According to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), as outlined in their 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties.” Regarding “outside activities,” the statement includes the following:

College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline…they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for their institution.

The statement was amended in 1970 to stipulate:

The controlling principle is that a faculty member’s expression of opinion as a citizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearly demonstrates the faculty member’s unfitness for his or her position. Extramural utterances rarely bear upon the faculty member’s fitness for the position.

This is further reinforced by the AAUP in its executive summary of 2011, “Ensuring Academic Freedom in Politically Controversial Academic Personnel Decisions.” The AAUP sees a current “political threat” to academic freedom from outside forces, including interest groups, politicians, and members of the media, which can put pressure on the university. All personnel decisions should rest on “academic fitness” and no institution should discipline academic speech “unless that speech implicates professional fitness.” James Tracy was clearly not unfit for his position, having received evaluations indicating that his teaching, scholarship, service to the institution, and job performance were considered to be “excellent.” Curley fought to keep these evaluations from the jury; only when he had left the courtroom one afternoon was Tracy’s team able to get them included in the record.  


FAU conspiracy with the judicial system? 

Tracy filed suit in April 2016, alleging a conspiracy between FAU and the faculty union, which had advised him not to fill out the outside activities forms, discouraged him from initiating a grievance or lawsuit, and even attempted to coerce him into resigning from his position. FAU delayed proceedings by the filing of repeated motions alleging that the suit was “frivolous,” that there was no conspiracy, and that Tracy’s termination was merely due to his failure to disclose his outside activities in a timely fashion. In February 2017, federal judge Robin Rosenberg ruled that Tracy’s lawsuit could proceed to discovery, with defendants including FAU, the Board of Trustees, President, Dean, Associate Provost, the Florida Education Association, the faculty union (United Faculty of Florida) and the union’s Chapter President and Service Unit Director.[4]

Robin Rosenberg Palm Beach Post 2 
US District Judge Robin Rosenberg of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Image: Palm Beach Post.

This allowed Tracy’s legal team to obtain thousands of internal emails from FAU, which supported his contention that members of the administration had conspired to discipline and finally fire him. The case proceeded on the basis of the Second Amended Complaint, which included six individual counts as follows:

Count I – Retaliation in Violation of Right to Free Speech, against Defendant FAU and Defendants President John Kelly, Associate Provost Diane Alperin, and College of Arts and Letters Dean Heather Coltman.
Count II – Conspiracy to Interfere with Plaintiff’s Civil Rights, against Defendants Alperin, Coltman, Kelly, UFF President Robert Zoeller, Jr., UFF Service Unit Director Michael Moats, UFF, Florida Education Association, and FAU.
Count III – Facial Challenge to FAU’s Conflict of Interest Policy, against Defendant FAU.
Count IV – As-Applied Challenge to Plaintiff’s Right to Free Speech, against Defendant FAU.
Count V – Declaratory Judgment and Injunction, against Defendant FAU.
Count VI – State Law Breach of Contract, against Defendant FAU.

Although the Second Amended Complaint shows clear evidence supporting every count, Judge Rosenberg eliminated all but the first count in her order on pending motions for summary judgment of October 31, 2017.[5] This reduced the case to a matter of why Tracy was fired—whether because of his blog posts or for not submitting his outside activities forms—and the decision was left up to a jury. This arguably suggests that the judge was aiding Defendant FAU in reducing the complaint to one of simple intent without reference to the complexities of the case and the large amount of evidence against the university. All this evidence was disregarded by the jury and ignored by the press.
LL tweet 12-12-17 
Incriminating memo by defendant Dean Heather Coltman of January 2013, part of the evidence discounted by the federal jury.

This had the effect of putting Tracy on trial (although he was the plaintiff and not the defendant), judged not by his actual peers but by a jury composed of members of the public who did not understand the full implications of the case—because much of the evidence was suppressed. Neither did they understand the implications of tenure, as they were not academics themselves. This upended the complaint and trashed many months of hard work by Tracy and his lawyers—work detailed in the 90 legal documents posted at the James Tracy Legal Defense Fund website.  

FAU conspiracy with the press? 

Much has been written about the massive bad press that James Tracy has received, beginning in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook event. This was instigated by the Florida Sun Sentinel and then taken up by the national mainstream and alternative media. The Sun Sentinel published a letter of December 10, 2015, written by Lenny and Veronique Pozner, publicized as the only Jewish family to have lost a child in the alleged Sandy Hook shooting. The letter, “Sandy Hook Massacre 3rd Anniversary: Two Parents Target FAU Conspiracy Theorist,” was reprinted in the Forward on December 14. The letter accused Tracy of “torturing” the victims’ families, and called for his firing:

A plethora of conspiracies arose after Sandy Hook, but none received as much mainstream publicity as Tracy, who suggested that the shooting never occurred and the Obama administration had staged the “event” to prepare the country for strict gun control measures.
More than 800 news agencies covered the story of his denial. As a result, this professor achieved fame among the morbid and deranged precisely because his theories were attached to his academic credentials and his affiliation with FAU. Tracy has enjoyed tremendous success from this exposure and has since leveraged it into a popular Internet blog and radio program. Worse yet, it has elevated his status and fame among the degenerates that revel in the pleasure of sadistically torturing victims’ families.

The Pozners’ accusations were false, as has been shown, but nonetheless they were picked up by other media outlets and used to bash Tracy in the US press. Strangely, the letter contains information that only an insider would likely have known. And it was this letter that brought on Tracy’s dismissal on January 5, 2016, although FAU insists that there was no connection. “The timing of it is completely coincidental,” said FAU attorney Curley. “The optics of course look like the school is retaliating, when they’re not.” The trial was covered by the local Florida press and kept out of the national media, with the exception of brief, disparaging reports in the Washington Post and New York Daily News. The titles of the articles indicate their biased nature:

-“Trial To Begin for Fired FAU Professor, Conspiracy Theorist James Tracy,” Sun Sentinel, November 27, 2017
-“Ex FAU Professor, Conspiracy Theorist James Tracy, Testifies about Firing in Free Speech Case,” Sun Sentinel, November 30, 2017
-“FAU Professor James Tracy Claims School Fired Him for Sandy Hook Rants,” Palm Beach Post, November 30, 2017
-“Ex-FAU Prof on Trial Tries To Downplay Attack on Sandy Hook Parents,” Palm Beach Post, December 1, 2017
-“FAU Prof Wasn’t Fired Because of Sandy Hook Blog, FAU Official Testifies,” Sun Sentinel, December 4, 2017
-“Christie: Tracy-vs-FAU More about Arrogance Than Free Speech, Insubordination,”, December 5, 2017
-“FAU Prof James Tracy’s Firing ‘Wasn’t a Surprise’ to Him, University Officials Say,” Sun Sentinel, December 5, 2017
-“What It Was Like in the Class of FAU’s Conspiracy-Spinning Professor,” Palm Beach Post, December 8, 2017
-“Claims against FAU by Sandy Hook Denier Headed To Federal Jury Monday,” Palm Beach Post, December 8, 2017
-“Jury Rules against Fired FAU Prof James Tracy in Free Speech Case,” Sun Sentinel, December 11, 2017

This last article pushes the idea that Tracy was an ordinary employee who “repeatedly refused to obey reasonable requests from his bosses.” It quotes Curley as saying that FAU officials were glad they got to “set the record straight.” According to the article:

FAU said it was about an employee who didn’t want to listen to his bosses, his peers or his union officials…Tracy used his position as an FAU professor for “self-promotion” and to bolster his blog’s reputation, Curley said. FAU officials testified Tracy lied to them about using university resources to write his blog…Curley listed several examples of Tracy’s failure to follow the rules and comply with reasonable requests from his employers. The school wasn’t his priority.

“The school was a platform for him—that’s not what it’s supposed to be about,” Curley said. A video in the article features an interview with Curley; watch it and judge for yourself whether this is an honest man.

Palm Beach Post 4 
Louis Leo warns off local reporters as the team departs the court house. Image NBC.

G. J. “Joe” Curley is a Florida “super lawyer” and shareholder with Gunster, “Florida’s law firm for business.” According to Gunster’s website, “Joe most often represents business clients with complicated employment and commercial matters in court”; his experience includes “the achievement of zero verdicts for institutional defendants, injunctions involving hundreds of millions in issue, as well as multi-million dollar verdicts in a variety of business related disputes.” On December 11, immediately following the verdict in the trial, attorney G. Joseph Curley became Judge Curley—appointed to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court by Florida Governor Rick Scott. “Curley’s appointment came just hours after he won a high-profile case involving a professor from Florida Atlantic University.” The “timing” of this was surely “completely coincidental” as Curley might say. [6] Governor Rick Scott will be familiar as the official who dominated the media after the Pulse nightclub event in Orlando.  

The fifth anniversary of the Sandy Hook incident 

Yet one more “coincidence” had the trial scheduled to run right up to the fifth anniversary of the Sandy Hook “shooting” on December 14, 2017. As expected, the mainstream press featured the “massacre” once again in major venues including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Daily News. Yet it has long been known that the official story is far from the truth. Much of the evidence can be found online in articles, lectures, and films (although Memory Hole Blog and many important youtube channels have been taken down) as well as in the book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, second edition, available from Moon Rock Books. The book was censored by and wiped from the site without a trace, but the first edition can be downloaded for free at several sites. New details continue to appear, making it ever more certain that this was a staged event. If you don’t believe me, you are not alone—although at least one-fourth of the US public reportedly now thinks they’ve been played.

A poll conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University in October 2016 found that 24% of Americans interviewed believed that it was at least possible that the Sandy Hook “shooting” was “faked in order to increase support for gun control.” It is likely that even more people now hold this opinion. Those who orchestrated the event are desperate to keep the facts from emerging, by banning books, pulling videos off the internet—and firing Professor James Tracy for daring to investigate. Tracy’s legal team is considering an appeal based on Rosenberg’s order on motions for summary judgment, which limited the proceedings to one count only. Tracy has been without a job and an income since he was fired, his scholarly reputation has been ruined, and he remains a subject of ridicule in the press. Not only has he suffered cruelly and unjustly, but academic freedom is now in real danger. In a statement by Tracy to the Washington Post:

In my view the Tracy v. FAU decision will embolden university administrators across the US to scrutinize the personal affairs of faculty members with whom they disagree, and they’ll be more inclined to discipline or terminate vulnerable faculty knowing a set of legal precedents are being established in this vein.

One positive outcome of the trial is the classification by Rosenberg of Tracy’s blog posts as private speech on matters of public concern, such as mass shootings, government conspiracies, and the like. With this, she threw out FAU’s repeated assertions that Tracy was conducting academic research on Memory Hole Blog pertinent to his employment. This may help with an appeal. But an appeal will require more resources. If you can support this cause, visit the James Tracy Legal Defense Fund website and click on “Give.”  

Vivian Lee is the nom de plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university. 


[1] FAU Defendants’ Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, page 74, section 5.;

[2] Collective Bargaining Agreement, 2012-2015, Florida Atlantic University Board of Trustees and the United Faculty of Florida, Articles 15.1 and 16.1.

[3] Vivian Lee, “American Academic Freedom in Jeopardy: Professor James Tracy vs. Florida Atlantic University (FAU), Global Research, May 7, 2016.;

[4] Vivian Lee, “Academic Freedom Lawsuit to Proceed: Judge Affirms First Amendment Rights.” Global Research, March 8, 2017.;

[5] Omnibus Order on All Pending Motions for Summary Judgment.;

[6] The governor of Florida also appoints 14 of the 17 members of the Board of Governors of the state university system of Florida. The governor appoints six of the 13 members of each state university’s Board of Trustees, and members of the Board of Governors appoint five of the 13. The governor thus controls appointments to the Board of Trustees of FAU.