Monday, December 10, 2012

Jim Fetzer / Jim Viken / Clare Kuehn

Earl Gluck "Interview" / Critiques by Jim Viken & Clare Kuehn

31 comments:

  1. Only Clare can keep the big man quiet. Good job girl!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Har har har. (Not true: he got nearly the full 1st quarter of my PID Jan 4 show and I had to crunch way too much into the last 3/4.) But thanks, I guess.

      Jim and I like each other a lot usually, so I hope he's okay with this joking interchange, Ab Irato! :)

      Delete
  2. Bravo, James!

    You did an admirable job continuing to speaking the truth to Gluck.

    Well done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is far too much of this insane and asinine Paul-Is-Dead hoax crud from Clare Kuehn. Professor Fetzer made the biggest mistake of his internet-blogging life when he let this deranged, deluded and psychotic maniac Kuehn onto his blogsite.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  4. That was a great show, Jim. You really turned the tables around on Gluck, and he exposed himself to the world as a utter fool. IMHO he's likely a shill of CIA intrigue. I personally think he was groomed as a CIA asset and was acting on instructions to try and discredit you, like another John McAdams.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not familiar with Gluck, but my guess is that we witnessed a mild acting out of minor paranoid delusions - a not uncommon case of concealed and unreasoning fears that surface even between friends and family members. Going by what Jim Viken says, one wouldn't have expected hostility from Gluck because Gluck is a like-minded individual. Gluck, I'm guessing, wanted to like Jim Fetzer because he didn't believe all the rumors and innuendos, which surely he's heard, claiming that Fetzer is a clever crypto-antisemite. Still, Gluck was hiding a doubt that he might be wrong about that. It's not easy for a Jew, especially a New York radio host who's expected to speak for his landsleite*, when his guest is skirting a touchy issue such as the holocaust (*Yiddish for "countrymen"). It's, of course, a major psyop that the 9/11 Truth movement is a "haven for antisemites". Even Norman Finkelstein, who is persona non grata for exposing the holocaust industry and Zionist ties with the Third Reich, is touchy about the potential of being used by antisemites. And it's obvious that Gluck was intimidated by Jim's facile command of facts and logic. Gluck was hiding his fears, but they suddenly got the better of him. He HAD to know for sure, his audience HAD to know for sure: is Jim an antisemite?

    ReplyDelete
  6. About 19 minutes into the interview, a minor misunderstanding is blown out of proportion. Jim had assured Gluck that "yeh, sure" the holocaust EXISTED. Now note: Gluck's concern was with the REALITY of the holocaust. Gluck then makes the logical mistake of equating the perverbial gassing of six million Jews (the accepted statistic) with whether the holocaust was REAL. Jim ignores this spurious equation and goes on to say that serious holocaust research should not face opposition. At this point, Jim, who has exquisitely demonstrated his aptitude for discriminating between fine points of logic when it comes to the facts of 9/11, makes a logical blunder. He says: "If the holocaust was REAL, then serious research is going to confirm it." Jim has gone from questioning the FACTS of the holocaust to questioning the REALITY of the holocaust, which he has previously accepted - or at least SAID he has accepted. But how could the master logician have made such an obvious logical blunder? Answer: it must have been a Freudian slip. Whether this statement was a logical "disjunction" is beside the point. Gluck's conclusion is now that Jim has exposed a "concealed antisemitism". From this point, the interview quickly goes down hill. "Name names," Gluck insists, when it comes to the defense industry; and what he's fishing for are JEWISH names. "Who benefited from 9/11?", Gluck asks. And, as if to feed Gluck's hidden fears, Jim responds: "The biggest beneficiary was Israel...."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Gluck is talking of "the" Holocaust as the official narrative of lots of deaths and specifically by gassing. Jim is not only merely raising the number change (how many died) possibility, but also the fact that a subject should be okay to look into, even if you're wrong.

      What always happens with a Gluck type is that "the" Holocaust is assumed to mean one thing and the other person answering can mean something different, such as a smaller number or a different set of causes, particularly malnourishment and typhus is the usual one mentioned by Deniers (common term)/ Revisionists (their preferred term).

      In addition, the idea that the Nazis brutally treated the prisoners -- all the prisoners practically -- is belied by the nature of a work camp with many living there and many witnesses; however, brutality was clearly evidenced as well. Neither Revisionists nor Holo-officialdom seem to recognize each others' points along the way very well.

      Delete
    2. There have been work camps in many countries where brutality has been completely absent. Foreign Gastarbeiter (guest workers) lived in work camps in Germany for decades after the war, and they were not treated brutally. So, I can't agree with you about the nature of a work camp. Perhaps you meant to say "concentration camp". By the way, please excuse my misspelling of your name below, Clare.

      Delete
    3. No problem about my name. Thanks.

      Most of these concentration camps were work sites but not always brutal; there is also ordinary (imprisoned) life which took place -- games, music, etc. sometimes, and which many witnesses remembered.

      That was what I was saying. But in addition -- and perhaps moreso in some areas than others -- there was brutality. One region it was very heavy seems to have been in the SS-controlled special region -- very tight security of everyone -- in the whole of Czechlosovakia. Some work gangs were worked to death there, it seems.

      And at least some camp brutality, with worse or better guard behaviour would also be easily supportable.

      I think it's clear they used and imprisoned and harmed many Jews and others. They also shot Jews straight off the trains from Russia in many cases, because so much of the Russian Revolution had taken root among the much-oppressed Jewish populations of Russia, where there had been pogroms and poverty, and so by the 30s-40s, many in the new Communist bureaucracy were Jews, so from Russia, many would be likely spies, thought the Nazis, probably rightly.

      The question of using the term "the Holocaust", however, is always: what do the two people mean between them? Gluck means PEOPLE DIED and they were many millions and largely gassed and abused by imprisonment and bad conditions before. Jim means PEOPLE DIED and they were reduced millions and to him probably (but he's open to hearing science if not) gassed but definitely abused by imprisonment and bad conditions before.

      If Gluck realized Jim does not mean there was no MASS DEATH, and Gluck could open his mind to the fact that the death cause must be rendered a scientific judgment of the circumstances so all inquiry into that must be allowed, they could talk to one another.

      Whatever Jim's partial questioning of the numbers of dead, Gluck should realize that mainstream Holocaust historians have revised their figures to roughly 2 million dead, if I remember the exact figure well. Anyway, it's a lot less than 6 million, but still a culture-group holocaust. And if Gluck understood that MOST "deniers"/ "revisionists" of note do not think there was no large death and disappearance in that period, for Jews and Poles, or deny there were concentration camps. They dispute how large is large (less than 2 million, but still stacked bodies at the end), and they dispute manner of death for most of those at the end.

      Delete
    4. That's not a logical blunder by Jim, IMHO. Just a supposition for the purpose of argument. Being the devil's advocate and question "if" the Holocaust happened, and "then" proceed from there: historical research being able to confirm the number of Jews killed.

      I believe that European Jews were the largest population of Nazi victims, but don't forget the rest: 500,000 Gypsies, 250,000 mentally or physically disabled persons, three million Soviet prisoners-of-war, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, Social Democrats, Communists, partisans, and trade unionists.

      Delete
  7. If Earl Gluck is reading this, I want to assure him that Jim Fetzer is NOT an antisemite. And, furthermore, that the 9/11 Truth movement (with the exception of a notable few such as Eric Hufschmid) is NOT a haven for antisemites. Jim Fetzer is no more spreading antisemitism as an agent of resurgent Nazism than Earl Gluck is carrying out the "Protocols" as an agent of the "Elders of Zion". But Jim Fetzer should know that he must be careful with how he chooses his words. For Jews, "Israel" means the Jewish People as a whole, as distinct from the "State of Israel", or what Jews sometimes call the "Territories of Israel". For Jews, "Zionism" is their nationalism, as distinct from "Jabotinskyite Zionism", or "second-wave Zionism", or "ultra-Zionism". It's like equating German nationalism with German Nazism not to make the distinction. Jim Viken made some perceptive remarks, but I think he went overboard when he suspected outright manipulation was involved. Claire Kuehn caught a lot of the subtleties, but I want to remind her that (1) Hitler and his henchmen were on record calling publicly for an "end to the Jews", (2) seizing a people's property and throwing them into concentration camps on account of their ethnicity (as it's currently being done in occupied Palestine, by the way) is itself genocide, regardless of the numbers, and (3) degrading the physical state of those you hold captive to the point that they fall prey to dysentery is just as much mass murder as gassing them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Atlanta Bill,
      Check out zioncrimefactorydotcom

      Delete
    2. @atlantabill: Where does hitler call publcly for an end to the Jews? And what does he mean by an end? I hope this isn't the 'ausrottungen" debate. And of course the appropriate holocaust question is if Hitler wanted to kill off the Jews, why on Earth didn't he at least eliminate German Jews? He could have easily, but didn't

      And Jews ran the "holocaust." Goetz Ali, whom I believe is a closet denier, wrote a book called "Hitler's beneficiaries." In it he details just who and how of the jewish property etc. The 5 biggest banks in German, before during and after Hitler, were Jewish owned. [It's ben a while, but if I remember correctly: Deutsche Bank (rothschild), Dresdner Bank (Dresdner, whose bank president before during and after Hitler was Hjalmar Schacht), Kommerzbank (Warburg), Berliner Gesellschaft (I think), and another "gesellschaft" which I can't remember.] They handled all the stocks, bonds, real estate etc confiscated from the Jews, and were handsomely compensated for it. The Dresdners and rothschilds were the two biggest contributors to the Nazi Party. All of the above were made "honorary Aryans." Moreover, these two were the biggest contributors to the slush fund [damn it but can't remember name] which was used to finance "off-the-books" the SS and was directly under Himmler's control.

      Moreover, these Jews were right in these camps. They were heavily invested in I G Fahrben and the steelworks and dye companies which were conducting there experimentation in Auschwitz and other places.

      Were the Nazis fiendish, murderous anti-semites, or, as Eichman suggested, did they just pretend to be give the populace an internal enemy so the Nazis could seize controlo of everything? I don't know, but as anti-semites they sure cooperative with Jewish capital.

      Delete
    3. One has to accept that Hitler's presuppositions here are a form of projection (that it was the German Nazis and the German/US/UK/and yes also Jewish financiers and industrialists behind Hitler who wanted the war, not "international Bolshevism" or "Jewry", i.e. the Jews as a people); but, given that, this "prophecy" of Hitler is pretty clearly calling for an end to the Jews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ4ePTieqL4&feature=player_detailpage#t=135s

      You were thinking of Carl Fürstenberg and the Berliner Handels-Gesellschaft. Yes, Fürstenberg was Jewish. The situation of German Jews was unique in that most of them thought of themselves more as Germans than as Jews. Elsewhere I referred to an analysis of Ralph Schoenman where he warned that Holocaust denial provides cover for Zionism: "The truth of this hidden history of Zionism will not be served by embracing the follies of racist historians who defend or deny the Nazi Holocaust. Most importantly, Holocaust 'denial' provides cover for Zionism by concealing the class history and politics of the Zionist movement [a creation of the 'Jewish haute-bourgeoisie' (Schoenman, ibid.)] and its own consequent holocaust against the Palestinian people."
      http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/The-U-S-Government-and-the-Continued-Policy-of-Denigrating-Muslims-2.htm

      Parroting Hitler and Goebbels' myth equating Zionism and Bolshevism is a double disservice. The German Democratic Socialist Party of Wilhelm Liebknecht was the best hope Germany and Europe ever knew. When the Party betrayed the international workers' movement by liquidating its traditions at the service of the German bourgeoisie and the German armed forces, the Bolsheviks (including Wilhelm's son Karl) defended those traditions; but unfortunately the Party was already on the road to counterrevolution and soon paved the way for Hitler.

      Delete
  8. Wow, Gluck is a pain in the ass. Dr. Fetzer exhibited enourmous patience with someone who is seemingly not well enough informed to appreciate the fundamentals. Gluck is controlling indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes Jim, it's great to see someone speak truth to a bulls&^t intellectually dishonest shill like Gluck. Hearing these people being called out and 'evidenced into some much needed humility' is just great. When you hear it, it makes you realize how rarely it is done and how often the shills get away with their tactics. Good one Jim!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jim, you tore that guy a brand new a--hole. That was outstanding. I don't know where you find these shills, but keep them coming and keep tearing them a new one.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, they invited me to be the featured guest on his show. (Notice how often he reminded me that this was HIS SHOW!) On the "If the Holocaust was real, . . . ", I was presenting a disjunction: Either the Holocaust was real or it was not If it was real, then serious scholarship will confirm it; and, if it was not real, then the world is entitled to know. Either way, it is intellectually irresponsible to limit, censure or deny Holocaust research.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim, you seemed to have misspoken when you told Gluck "yeh, sure" you believed that the Holocaust had existed. Your "disjunction" was proof enough for Gluck that you had lied and that you actually entertain the possibility that the Holocaust had NOT existed. Gluck was there to test you and the 9/11 Truth movement out - as to whether the movement is a haven for Holocaust deniers, and your "if the Holocaust existed" was proof enough for Gluck (and presumably Gluck's Jewish listeners) that it is. Holocaust denial, as distinct from the clarification that Holocaust research might offer for the NATURE of the Holocaust, is a meme that has disastrous implications for rehabilitating Hitler and the German Nazis. I hope that's not your purpose, but you don't seem to make any serious attempts at disambiguation. I think you would do the movement a valuable service if you devoted some "serious scholarship" to how the founders of the State of Israel and their intellectual heirs, and still more crucially their NATO and US allies, have promoted FASCISM by disserving the memories of its WWII victims.

      Delete
    2. Since I already explained that I was arguing in favor of serious research on the Holocaust (along with other serious matters, such as the assassination of JFK and the atrocities of 9/11), it was he who was committing the blunder, not I. The scope and character of the Holocaust is what is at issue, not whether the Nazis ran concentration camps and were very bad guys.

      We seem to be emulating them right here in America. Have you read any of these recent articles of mine about this?

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/04/fusion-and-fear-in-america-the-non-existent-terrorist-threat/

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/06/homeland-security-preparing-for-massive-civil-war/

      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/11/from-america-to-amerika-the-end-game/

      Delete
    3. Jim, I think you're artificially limiting the logical alternatives: the scope and character AND the responsible political forces (the German Nazis and their allies) are all at issue, and they're not mutually exclusive issues, either. I know people who were in Germany in the '30s and have said for years that the atmosphere here in the U.S. is the same; one was later an officer in the OSS and wrote a fictionalized novel about his experiences in occupied Austria. I don't know what's more frightening to me: the 1.4 billion rounds in the hands of Homeland Security (Heimat SD) or the half-century-plus of underground thinktanks and suppression of information regarding the post-war period. Is it an accident that the police state is rising at the very time that the last WWII veterans are dying off? I'm of the opinion that there's a solid continuity, a suppressed but official history, that reaches back into the Third Reich and its supportive community in the U.S.: you seem yourself to be on the trail of this, but you need to take it further than "emulation". I'm definitely going to check out your links.

      Delete
    4. Jim, the case you've built at Veterans Today for an imminent police-state is a remarkably valuable contribution in defense of our liberty. I've been following the issue for a long time, and it seems to me that you haven't missed much. The three articles you linked to above represent in combination a touchstone for holding up the light to the gathering forces of despotism.

      History seems to be repeating itself, but we don't know enough about the social potential to thwart the takeover. In Germany there were battles in the streets; and, had the anti-fascist forces not been stabbed in the back by professed allies abroad and within the government, they might have succeeded. There were many points at which the German Nazis just survived by the skin of their teeth. We have to know what historical currents can be counted on to provide reliable allies and what forces are out there trying to derail us, especially as we link the struggle internationally. It doesn't seem likely that we can count on a world war to isolate and crush American Nazism, as such a war could mean the end of civilization or, worse, human life on the planet. I'm optimistic, but we can't be too careful, as we'll be taking on a cornered rat of unprecedented viciousness.

      Delete
  12. On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Max < @yahoo.com> wrote:

    Jim,

    Just listened to your interview with Earl Gluck! You got him good. He's a sneaky guy with a bad reputation - check out some of these negative reviews http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/errol-gluck-gluck-solutions-new-york-new-york-c589454.html and check this one out too http://www.ripoffreport.com/errol-gluck/mental-health/new-york-new-york-5a740.htm [Here's what the latter says:

    Dr. Errol Gluck said he could hypnotize me into eating less and losing weight. Not only did it not work, but he lied to me about the following.

    1. He told me he could get me a job doing voiceover work for a big budget movie that was in production. It make absolutely no sense, because I have a massive speech problem.

    2. He told me he could get one of his clients in the clothing business to buy my tee shirt designs.

    3. He told me his client ran the Strand Bookstore and could get me a job there.

    4. He insisted that I buy "prescription strength" nutritional supplements from him at high prices.

    5. He tried to get me to take prescription drugs. When I told him "only an MD can prescribe drugs" he answered "my father's an MD, I can get them through him."

    6. He told me he had a doctorate in theology, giving him clergy privilges. I said "what if someone admits to sexually abusing kids?" He replied "then I'll just kill them myself."

    7. He told me he had a gun trader's license and was starting an arms dealing business in South Africa, and wanted to send me there as an employee. I told him "you've got to be crazy, people get killed there" and he answered "it'll be okay, I have a guy that was a Navy SEAL, he'll go with you." I still wasn't convinced, and I said "you're a hypnotist, why not make even more money hypnotizing the soldiers into not being afraid of the enemy?" His reply to that was "listen, you have your hobbies, and I have mine."

    At this point I discontinued our "therapy." I'd kept going to his sessions for a year because I wanted those jobs he promised. But the $250 price per session would've been too much. I'd love to recover the money, and fortunately, I paid with a credit card so there's a record of the payments.

    I contacted the NY State Office of Misconduct Enforcement, but since he's not licensed, there's nothing they can do. However, there were complaints about him for similar reasons in the last decade, and the information will be made available to official investigations.

    I contacted the NY State Attorney General's Office of Consumer Fraud and have not heard back. If you've been cheated or lied to by Dr. Errol Gluck, contact this office and file a complaint.

    Dr. Gluck may or may not have a PhD from an accredited university, but he's not licensed to practice anything, be it psychology, psychoanalysis, life coaching, hypnosis, etc. He eats while working with his clients (not very professional), talks to them about his personal life, and tried to get me to date his receptionist. Since he's not licensed, I'm not even sure how much of what goes on there is actually privileged.]

    Is this guy a Dr? He calls himself one.

    Look forward to more episodes on JFK, as that is something I'm deeply interested in.

    Best,

    Max

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr. Fetzer did a good job handling a hostile interview.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Don Heddesheimer
    The First Holocaust
    Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns
    with Holocaust Claims
    During and After World War One

    http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/tfh/

    "I believe that European Jews were the largest population of Nazi victims, but don't forget the rest: 500,000 Gypsies, 250,000 mentally or physically disabled persons, three million Soviet prisoners-of-war, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, Social Democrats, Communists, partisans, and trade unionists."

    Even if those numbers were true, compared to the 60,000,000-plus victims of Jewish communism in Russia, Ukraine, etc. (not to mention Red China and other countries which ups the number near 100,000,000) those numbers PALE IN COMPARISON.

    Why is it we don't hear about these victims of the Red Holocaust which dwarf the alleged Jewish holocaust? Hmmm, Gluck, et. al?

    "I think it's clear they used and imprisoned and harmed many Jews and others."

    If true, compared to the number of gentiles murdered by the Jewish-run NKVD, that number was a pittance.

    "They also shot Jews straight off the trains from Russia in many cases,"

    So they claim.

    "because so much of the Russian Revolution had taken root among the much-oppressed Jewish populations of Russia, where there had been pogroms"

    There would've been no "Russian Revolution" if it weren't for Jewish idealogy, financing, planning and organization. Communism was as Jewish as National Socialism was German. Jews have never been held accountable for the most evil, oppressive tyranny ever unleashed upon mankind.

    "Much-oppressed"? The reality is: "kept in line." Give Jews complete freedom and before you know it they take over your society--one need look no further than America for an example. Yeah, I know, "anti-semitic canards." Not one shred of truth or evidence to back it up. Yawnnn....

    As far as pogroms go, a) there were no where near as many as the Jews claim, and b) they were a gentile self-defense response to Jewish behavior, i.e., thievery, subversive activies, etc. Yeah, I know, more "anti-semitic canards."

    "furthermore, that the 9/11 Truth movement (with the exception of a notable few such as Eric Hufschmid) is NOT a haven for antisemites."

    I resent that libel. I really do. Wanting to get to the truth of what really happened on 9/11 and who has behind it (Israel) does NOT in any way, shape, manner or form mean one is anti-Jewish. But being slandered with that anti-gentile label can really turn one into a bona fide anti-semite.

    “Well, it’s a trick, we always use. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel then we bring up the holocaust. When in this country (US) people are criticizing Israel then they are anti-semitic."--Former Israeli cabinet minister Shulamit Aloni

    Altantabill, knock it off with the facist b.s. You're starting to get almost as obnoxious as Alex Jones on this subject. The growing police state is coming from the modern-day Bolsheviks not some secret National Socialist organization embedded in our FedGov aka ZOG.

    WLP

    ReplyDelete
  15. There is far too much of this insane and asinine Paul-Is-Dead hoax crud from Clare Kuehn. Professor Fetzer made the biggest mistake of his internet-blogging life when he let this deranged, deluded and psychotic maniac Kuehn onto his blogsite.

    ReplyDelete