The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School

[Jan Klimkowski]

Jan,

I only used the term "CTer" because that's what commonly used in the research community to distinguish one from an "LNer." I am all too aware that the term is used disparagingly by the mainstream media to demean seekers of the truth. We'll have to come up with another term- maybe we can just use Truthers and apply it to JFK researchers.

Don,

To hell with "common usage." It's killing the truth.

"CTer" is damaging not only because it was created and is being skillfully wielded as a weapon to disparage us and lampoon our efforts.

It also characterizes the truth that has been revealed thanks to our historic, courageous work as mere theory.

It implicitly supports the misconception that said truth and the Lone Nut lie are equally viable theories that must be argued with academic dispassion and mutual respect.

Worst of all, it accomplishes the enemy's main goal: preserve doubt.

And "Truthers" is a more overtly sarcastic and disparaging term than "CTer."

Again: Anyone with reasonable access to JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

The same statement is valid for and must be made about the assassinations of MLK and RFK.

No more "theory." No more disparaging epithets.

Proclaim truth. Defend truth. Set free the truth so that it may set us free.

Don - unsurprizingly, I am in complete agreement with Charles.

I will add that the only term that I know that is more condescending and contaminated than "Conspiracy Theorist" is "Truther" or "Troofer".

At the link here is an article by connected trendy liberal Conor Foley entitled "The Troof is Out There". It was published in 2007.

Note his rather disgusting conclusion, since taken up by numerous MSM-endorsed "intellectuals":

Sceptics should probe for "inconsistencies in the official narrative", but then apply a "balance of probabilities" test with the alternative explanations on offer. Troofers demand "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" because they already have another view fixed in their minds. Most of us already know the telltale signs when someone tells us that they are "increasingly troubled by some of the details about how many people actually died in the Holocaust" and shut the conversation down immediately. I think that we probably need to start treating 9/11 conspiracy theorists in a similar way.

As a free gift to Volkland Security, I will identify some of my comments in that 2007 thread:

The sole contribution of Conor Foley to this debate is to replace the pejorative phrase "conspiracy theorist" with the new, and explicitly neanderthal, formulation of "troofer", as if everyone who questions the official account of major world events is illiterate and stupid. Thanks Conor, how very patronisingly academic of you. As a card-carrying NUJ member, and staff producer at the BBC for more than a decade, I was taught to look at the evidence with a critical, rather than a subservient, eye.

Imo it is the responsibility of all of us - whatever our vocation - to look at events, research them, and if there are serious doubts see if there is evidence which contradicts official claims. Because often the media simply colludes with some mainstream, consensus, version of events. As an example, when Blair was droning on about how 9/11 had changed the world, and we had to achieve regime change in Iraq to protect the world from terrorist threats, why did no single lobby correspondent ask him ,"um, Tony, what's the link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein?" The lobby hacks didn't ask him because they would have had their lucrative accreditation withdrawn. And Blair frequently stated that claims the Iraq war was about oil were "conspiracy theories". Well, dear old "troofer" Alan Greenspan, has just admitted that it was absolutely "all about oil". So, Conor Foley, just remember that when you come up with patronising phrases like "troofer", you are actually closing down intelligent debate in this country.

Don - why would you ever consider allowing the enemy to define you?