14-02-2009, 08:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 15-02-2009, 08:25 PM by Charles Drago.)
It's the old "level the playing field" gambit.
With the publication of his JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglass has put the fear of God -- quite literally, I think -- in some very powerful people.
The current directors of the JFK cover-up must neutralize the power of Douglass' argument to inform, enlighten, and empower. Since they cannot impugn his credentials or integrity, they are forced to counter with the presentation of similarly credentialed -- at least at first glance -- authority.
Enter one Edward Feser, who describes himself thusly: "I am a writer and philosopher living in Los Angeles. I teach philosophy at Pasadena City College. My primary academic research interests are in the philosophy of mind, moral and political philosophy, and philosophy of religion. I also write on politics, from a conservative point of view; and on religion, from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective."
Among Feser's published works we find The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism; Locke; The Cambridge Companion to Hayek; Philosophy of Mind; and On Nozick.
In addition, he is a darling of National Review magazine.
On January 26 of this year, Feser published on his blog an extended essay, "The Problem with Conspiracy Theories," which is accessible at:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/01/...ories.html
As I wrote in my initial response thereon:
Quoting Feser: "So, structurally, there is just no plausible way for an 'inside job' conspiracy of the JFK assassination or 9/11 type to work."
To be charitable: pure, unadulterated lunacy -- psychobabble and pseudo-history in service to the grandest illusion.
In re the JFK assassination: Nothing stated in the entire essay addresses the irrefutable physical, medical, eyewitness, earwitness, photographic, audio, and additional forensic and circumstantial evidence -- that is, proof -- of conspiracy which, honestly and deeply analyzed, establishes beyond all doubt the identities and motives of the top tier conspirators.
This is nothing more than an old pig in a new dress. See, "People can't believe a nobody like LHO killed a world-historic leader."
And then we have, again quoting the great philosopher: "I read a great deal about the JFK assassination case, and was even convinced for a time that there was a conspiracy involving the government. While I no longer believe that – I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy, and acted alone – I concede that there are certain pieces of evidence that might lead a reasonable person who hasn’t investigated the case very deeply to doubt the 'official story.'"
Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK evidence who does not conclude that conspirators killed the president is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
The author is encouraged to explain his essay accordingly.
I subsequently posted this:
The timing of the appearance of Mr. Feser's JFK commentary is, at the very least, thought-provoking.
This self-described bearer of "a traditional Roman Catholic perspective" weighs in on the Dallas conspiracy in the wake of James Douglass' JFK and the Unthinkable.
Douglass is a Thomas Merton scholar, a celebrated peace activist, and, with his wife Shelley, is the co-founder of Mary's House, a Catholic Worker house of hospitality in Birmingham, Alabama. His books include "The Nonviolent Cross," "The Nonviolent Coming of God," and "Resistance and Contemplation."
Mr. Feser, it seems, is being offered in a classic "level the playing field" gambit.
Too little, too late.
As always, the assassins' surrogates are targeting history.
A Christian scholar appears to reveal the identities and motives of the sponsors of JFK's murder.
An ersatz Christian scholar is produced by the Unspeakable to "argue" against the existence of the Unspeakable.
The message to history: See, you can go either way on this.
Mr. Douglass, if you are within sight of these words, would you care to challenge Feser?
You may use this forum freely, without editorial interference.
With the publication of his JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglass has put the fear of God -- quite literally, I think -- in some very powerful people.
The current directors of the JFK cover-up must neutralize the power of Douglass' argument to inform, enlighten, and empower. Since they cannot impugn his credentials or integrity, they are forced to counter with the presentation of similarly credentialed -- at least at first glance -- authority.
Enter one Edward Feser, who describes himself thusly: "I am a writer and philosopher living in Los Angeles. I teach philosophy at Pasadena City College. My primary academic research interests are in the philosophy of mind, moral and political philosophy, and philosophy of religion. I also write on politics, from a conservative point of view; and on religion, from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective."
Among Feser's published works we find The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism; Locke; The Cambridge Companion to Hayek; Philosophy of Mind; and On Nozick.
In addition, he is a darling of National Review magazine.
On January 26 of this year, Feser published on his blog an extended essay, "The Problem with Conspiracy Theories," which is accessible at:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/01/...ories.html
As I wrote in my initial response thereon:
Quoting Feser: "So, structurally, there is just no plausible way for an 'inside job' conspiracy of the JFK assassination or 9/11 type to work."
To be charitable: pure, unadulterated lunacy -- psychobabble and pseudo-history in service to the grandest illusion.
In re the JFK assassination: Nothing stated in the entire essay addresses the irrefutable physical, medical, eyewitness, earwitness, photographic, audio, and additional forensic and circumstantial evidence -- that is, proof -- of conspiracy which, honestly and deeply analyzed, establishes beyond all doubt the identities and motives of the top tier conspirators.
This is nothing more than an old pig in a new dress. See, "People can't believe a nobody like LHO killed a world-historic leader."
And then we have, again quoting the great philosopher: "I read a great deal about the JFK assassination case, and was even convinced for a time that there was a conspiracy involving the government. While I no longer believe that – I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy, and acted alone – I concede that there are certain pieces of evidence that might lead a reasonable person who hasn’t investigated the case very deeply to doubt the 'official story.'"
Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK evidence who does not conclude that conspirators killed the president is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
The author is encouraged to explain his essay accordingly.
I subsequently posted this:
The timing of the appearance of Mr. Feser's JFK commentary is, at the very least, thought-provoking.
This self-described bearer of "a traditional Roman Catholic perspective" weighs in on the Dallas conspiracy in the wake of James Douglass' JFK and the Unthinkable.
Douglass is a Thomas Merton scholar, a celebrated peace activist, and, with his wife Shelley, is the co-founder of Mary's House, a Catholic Worker house of hospitality in Birmingham, Alabama. His books include "The Nonviolent Cross," "The Nonviolent Coming of God," and "Resistance and Contemplation."
Mr. Feser, it seems, is being offered in a classic "level the playing field" gambit.
Too little, too late.
As always, the assassins' surrogates are targeting history.
A Christian scholar appears to reveal the identities and motives of the sponsors of JFK's murder.
An ersatz Christian scholar is produced by the Unspeakable to "argue" against the existence of the Unspeakable.
The message to history: See, you can go either way on this.
Mr. Douglass, if you are within sight of these words, would you care to challenge Feser?
You may use this forum freely, without editorial interference.