Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

You are incapable of making the least discerning distinctions. I would not
cite Eustace Mullens BECAUSE I have never heard of him. Each of us has
acquired his own perspective. And, as though it were not obvious enough,
I invited his commentary BECAUSE he is an expert in dealing with psy ops,
which I am not. Why would I invited his comments and then censor or re-
write them? Your critical capacities are clearly diminished and not worth
the bother. Dawn must have had you in mind as the immature attention
seeker. This thread is too important for your shallow distractions. I ask
that ADRIAN MACK be blocked from posting on this thread. Many thanks!

Until he mentioned Eustace Mullens, I had never heard of him. So I would not be citing him as a source, either. But with so much material here that is of such extraordinary interest, why are you so fixated upon trivialities? Don't answer, because I really don't want to know. If you have better things to do, then spend your time on other threads.

Do you normally co-sign information that you aren't sure about?

If you are saying you reject Eustace Mullens as a source, does that mean you reject your expert as reliable?

These are hardly trivialities.

Are you going to answer me?

[Adrian Mack]

Your critical capacities are clearly diminished and not worth
the bother.

And what do you have to say about the critical capacities of somebody who cites Eustace Mullens, who you reject?

[James H. Fetzer]

You appear to be determined to draw attention to yourself, which I
interpret as an attempt to sabotage the thread. I have no knowledge
or opinion about Eustace Mullens. What bewilders me is why anyone
would think that I or others ought to be inhibiting someone I invited
to contribute by questioning his sources? Even if I had an opinion on
this source, it would be his right to cite him. You are far off-base and I
certainly hope this form of harassment will not be allowed to continue.

Your critical capacities are clearly diminished and not worth
the bother.

And what do you have to say about the critical capacities of somebody who cites Eustace Mullens, who you reject?

[Magda Hassan]

Dr Fetzer rejects Eustace Mullens because he is not familiar with him. He may be a reliable source or and unreliable source but Jim doesn't know of him to make that judgment yet. This seemed quite clear in his previous post.

[James H. Fetzer]

Strictly speaking, lacking knowledge of this source, I neither accept nor
reject him. But it would be my expert's right to cite any source he likes.
I believe that this is a deliberate effort to sabotage this thread, Magda,
and I hereby request that Adrian be blocked and his posts be removed.

Dr Fetzer rejects Eustace Mullens because he is not familiar with him. He may be a reliable source or and unreliable source but Jim doesn't know of him to make that judgment yet. This seemed quite clear in his previous post.

[Adrian Mack]

Dr Fetzer rejects Eustace Mullens because he is not familiar with him. He may be a reliable source or and unreliable source but Jim doesn't know of him to make that judgment yet. This seemed quite clear in his previous post.

Does this not call into question the judgement of Dr. Fetzer's anonymous expert? This person is supposed to be legitimizing Baker somehow, no?

In case anybody needs help, here's Mullins:

The Jews do not want anyone to know what Nazism is. Nazism is simply this -- a proposal that the German people rid themselves of the parasitic Jews. The gentile host dared to protest against the continued presence of the parasite, and attempted to throw it off. It was an ineffectual reaction, because it was emotional and ill-informed.

- Mullens, The Biological Jew

Judyth Vary Baker isn't in good company all of a sudden, is she?

Can Dr. Fetzer decide whether or not Eustace Mullens is a reliable source now? And does this colour his opinion of his "expert" in any way?

Furthermore - why couldn't he just allow Baker's argument to stand on its own?

[Magda Hassan]

Eustace Mullens is an anti-Semite. Perhaps Dr Fetzer's source is an anti-Semite as well. But we are not here talking about their views on 'The Jewish Problem - True or False?'. Dr Fetzer is seeking the advice of his source because of his expertise on psy-ops. It is part of the Judyth V. Baker story that she has been subjected to harassment possibly as part of some psy-ops. Why not stick to Judyth's story?

[Adrian Mack]

Why not stick to Judyth's story?

I might ask the same of Dr. Fetzer.

Why bring in this anonymous, apparently anti-Semitic Jedi master of psy-ops when Baker's story can stand or fall on its own merits?

The accusation of anti-Semitism is the mainstream's first line of attack, right or wrong, in the war against "conspiracy theory". A war that they're winning, if you hadn't noticed.

Why give them the opportunity? Why hand them the ammo? Fetzer's "expert" has contributed nothing to Baker's story, besides a whole lotta bad faith.

Why would you even buddy up to that?

But whatever.

If you want people to understand the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, persuade them to read Breach of Trust, or The Last Investigation, or JFK and the Unspeakable, or Oswald and the CIA. It's all there.

[David Guyatt]

If you'll forgive me for saying so, and with no disrespect to you personally, I think it is you who are struggling with the apparent conflict that interconnectedness is the reality of the world in which we live.

Compartmenting subjects is completely understandable.

In the last analysis none of us really wishes or wants to digest the indigestible.

But this is exactly what we must do if we are to have any meaningful impact on our world as it is currently configured.

I'm as sorry about this as you are.

Well said, David.
:congrats::congrats::congrats:

Hey Linda, good to see you. I hope you are well.

[David Guyatt]

Dr Fetzer rejects Eustace Mullens because he is not familiar with him. He may be a reliable source or and unreliable source but Jim doesn't know of him to make that judgment yet. This seemed quite clear in his previous post.

Does this not call into question the judgement of Dr. Fetzer's anonymous expert? This person is supposed to be legitimizing Baker somehow, no?

In case anybody needs help, here's Mullins:

The Jews do not want anyone to know what Nazism is. Nazism is simply this -- a proposal that the German people rid themselves of the parasitic Jews. The gentile host dared to protest against the continued presence of the parasite, and attempted to throw it off. It was an ineffectual reaction, because it was emotional and ill-informed.

- Mullens, The Biological Jew

Judyth Vary Baker isn't in good company all of a sudden, is she?

Can Dr. Fetzer decide whether or not Eustace Mullens is a reliable source now? And does this colour his opinion of his "expert" in any way?

Furthermore - why couldn't he just allow Baker's argument to stand on its own?

Heck, I thought we'd already covered this ground once. Revisiting it again and again is tedious and distracting.