The Anti-James Douglass Appears

[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.

[Peter Lemkin]

clone a bit of Pozner to a bit of Russo to a bit of [fill in the blank] CIA/FBI/USG/MSM spokesperson-liar and voila - a Frankenfraud authority on JFK. One must give the propagandists for the Big Lie one thing - they don't sleep and they don't let up.:elefante:

[Charles Drago]

How very true.

At another widely respected -- if somewhat problematic -- forum on which deep political subject matter is discussed, a notorious correspondent who in fact is merely an empty vessel through which higher ranking acolytes of the Unspeakable spread their propaganda recently began to venture into JFK territory.

For years this persona has served to deflect, dilute, and otherwise disrupt pages devoted to 9-11 research and, in general, subjects that draw the Unspeakable's attention. But it has not been applied to JFK assassination discussions until now.

On cue, otherwise well-intentioned and, in some cases, even learned JFK researchers are being drawn into debate with this persona -- for the sake of clarity let's refer to it as Big Nicotine.

The only morally acceptable response is to continue to expose Big Nicotine for what it is -- as I have done repeatedly on the aforementioned site. I have exposed its nature as a vessel for multiple posters by noting its absurdly wide and instantly applied arrays of expertise and laughably inconsistent usage of the English language. Others who regularly post on these pages have done likewise.

Yet Big Nicotine continues to wreak havoc at the other forum and elsewhere.

Given the background of Big Nicotine's legend, or overt persona, we should not be surprised. As the name I've chosen for him indicates, he is the spawn of one of the Unspeakable's most reprehensible errand boys.

Lest anyone doubt the presence of the Unspeakable among us today.

[Peter Lemkin]

"Lest anyone doubt the presence of the Unspeakable among us today."
Charles, I personally think they [that's 'they'] have proliferated in numbers and one can't doubt their presence at any point in history from day one to tomorrow! Given their increased numbers, we must redouble our efforts to fight them. This is the ultimate battle - for the truth of history and the morality [I'd even say existance] of the future. All must stake their picket-pins in the ground and fight to the end - refusing to move, unless it is forward. The Unspeakable in 1963 was childsplay compared to today, IMO. No change in substance, only in its effect and power over the society and planet, at large. From the day the first witnesses started to speak the truth and the first critics began to criticize, they [that's 'they] have inserted themselves, invented experts and writers on the subject, false witnesses and tampered and killed real one, etc. Douglass should take it as a backhanded compliment - they feared his book and truth enoughtve to have to try to neutralized it. You can't neutralize the Truth, only obscure it temporarily - and the longer one does so, the greater ther price to be paid [often by the wrong persons, sadly].

[Magda Hassan]

God, where did this reactionary right wing dis-info agent and god botherer come from? Looking at his web site and blog he seems to have arrived on the scene fully formed and ready to go. Even to the point of disclaiming his earlier writings.

NOTE: The older an article, the less likely the author is to continue to hold the views expressed in it. In particular, he would now repudiate the libertarianism and philosophical naturalism evident in some of the earlier pieces.

Some one who repudiates philosophical naturalism rings alarm bells for me. Some one who rejects the scientific method yet supports the 'invisible' hand of the market place and believes that there is a parking spot god out there cannot be taken seriously. He looks likes someone who is trying to mentally conform and fit events to a proscribed view of the world (some officially approved variant of right wing Catholicism I suppose).

Certainly looks like he is being used as the antidote to Douglass mind expanding research. Though being an intellectual hack he is no where near in the same league as Douglass in more ways than one. When I first saw Fesser's article it was posted on another forum by someone I consider to be not very well read and not noted for thinking for themselves. I did wonder where such a mentally unadventurous person would have found such an article unless it was handed to them to disseminate. I bet they haven't read Douglass. That wasn't handed to them to read and might be too challenging.

Just a few criticisms of the 'essay'.

Since when was the US a Liberal Democracy? It is a republic not a democracy. It has spent most of its existence trying to crush democracy when ever they saw it. Firstly, wiping out the indigenous, building a society on slavery, disenfranchising the 'freed' slaves and no votes for women or poor. Then there are the armed expeditions outside of the country to exterminate democracy in other places in the world. A work in progress.

He seems to believe that there is a real actual difference between the Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber administrations. The because of the bureaucratic interests and the 'too powerful' unions (in the US?!) and the 'lack' of a profit motive (in a society built on it?) there would be no incentive be be involved in a conspiracy. Never mind that he contradicts himself in the next paragraph by saying the leaders of the Soviet Union really did conspire to do evil (what exactly?) and were able to achieve this despite their notoriously cumbersome bureaucracy. I am sure Fesser would say there were no unions in the USSR. Mmmm..... Maybe he didn't study logic at philosophy school.

Of course, some conspiracy theorists will insist that the adversarial, checks-and-balances nature of liberal democracies and their tolerant ethos are themselves just part of the illusion created by the conspirators.

And of course those that don't believe there are conspiracies will persist in the fantasy that the US is a liberal democracy and/or that persons in a liberal democracy would never be involved in a conspiracy and that any conspiracies that occur with in a liberal democracy are just an illusion created by the observer.

Somehow, even the fact that conspiracy theorists are perfectly free to publish their books, organize rallies, etc. in a way they would not for a moment be able to do in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia is nevertheless just part of a more subtle and diabolical form of police state.

Somehow Fesser seems to have missed the introduction of the anti-terrorists laws patriot act etc. Maybe he can talk to Leonard Peltier and the Cuban 5 about their experiences of justice and cheques and balances and those of thousands of other prisoners in jail for being problematic to the PTB. Try getting on the MSM with anything other than official reality of any kind and see how much air time you get. Just because there is a media doesn't mean they have to let everyone play. Just because you can have a rally for something doesn't mean any one is listening let alone going to do anything. Gives the illusion of freedom meanwhile it is business as usual.

Fesser regards the Vietnam war as a just war!

But outright murder is extremely rare, and usually folded into some legitimate context so as to make it seem justifiable (e.g. My Lai or the firebombing of Dresden, atrocities committed in the course of otherwise just wars).

He just ignores or justifies the 2 million (conservative estimate) dead many more maimed and traumatised for life and the destruction of a whole country and neighbouring countries that never did anything to the US (a familiar story) Never mind that all the post WW2 surplus military was sent to Korea and Vietnam and they were going to have their war come what may and no one, not even a president, was going to stand in their way. Never mind Operation Phoenix. Mai Lai was an exception to the rule? Yeah.

I just love it how time and time again the anti-conspiracy white wash types such as Fesser neglect to mention or notice that according to the 'official' version of the JFK assassination it is accepted that it is a conspiracy. They prefer to stay in the past with the Warren Commission report and use its discredited findings as 'proof'. The evidence of a conspiracy exist with in the WC report and with much of the evidence, witness reports and information that has come since then.

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 (e.g. the backward movement of Kennedy’s head, Ruby’s assassination of Oswald) that might lead a reasonable person who hasn’t investigated the case very deeply to doubt the “official story.”

I read a great deal of the bible once, and was even convinced for a time that there was a God. But after the age of 8 I used my own mind and came to the conclusion that it was mostly fiction and life and history was quite different. Well as someone who repudiates natural philosophy and scientific method I would expect nothing else from Fesser. I suppose he now sits around these days working out how many angels can fit on the head of a pin or in wonder at the reality of transubstantiation or how the invisible hand of the market place will magically solve the economic crisis.

Why, then, do people fall for these theories? Largely out of simple intellectual error. But what makes someone susceptible of this particular kind of error?

Do they fall for any theories at all? Or do they come to other conclusions with more evidence than in 'official' theories? Why does Fesser fall for the fairy tale of the American myth and Jesus and his birth and death and supposed miracles? The garden of Eden? Yet he ignores the cavernous hole in the back of JFK's head and the backward movement at the point of bullet impact. He ignores the obvious and common sense. Or does he think the bible is an historical truth as he does the Warren Commission (while rejecting the HSCA report)?

Oh, god, that's enough. It's been amusing but I have more interesting things to do like clean the kitty litter tray. I'm glad I'm not paying good money for one of his courses in 'philosophy'. Wonder what his real job is?

[Peter Lemkin]

Magda, Something in your last post made me think it might be a good idea [from the standpoint of the Deep Government] to no longer have Presidents et al. swear an oath using the Christian Bible, but rather with their hand placed on a copy of the Warren Report - all 28 volumes should just about reach the correct height. That would, in fact and sadly, be a more 'in tune' 'ethical' and 'moral' tome for those things they will be called upon to uphold and proceed based on.

[Magda Hassan]

Well Peter, it certainly seems to be a sacred (cow) text for some who believe in it. heep:

[David Guyatt]

God, where did this reactionary right wing dis-info agent and god botherer come from? Looking at his web site and blog he seems to have arrived on the scene fully formed and ready to go.

Well, as we here know, at least one other protagonist similarly arrived on the scene in 2005, equally fully formed and ready to go - with no historical background (not even one prior utterance) to show his development to speak with knowledge on these subjects. Then in a period of a few months he was all over various forums like a rash spouting confusion like an old debunking hand.

Somewhere there must be a school where these types learn their arts of deceptive arguing?

[Paul Rigby]

Somewhere there must be a school where these types learn their arts of deceptive arguing?

Langley High, or MIT?

[David Guyatt]

Somewhere there must be a school where these types learn their arts of deceptive arguing?

Langley High, or MIT?

:top: