Read on, it's a real trip!
Comment: First email. Note the dates and times as the discussion progresses. "Angus'" email address has been hidden in the interest of internet privacy.
Subject: Joe Quinn
From: xxx.gmail.com
Date: 27/08/2008 21:42
To: sott@sott.net
Hi,
I am trying to contact Joe Quinn. Could you forward this enquiry to him, or let me know his email address?
Thank you
Angus
Comment: I responded:
Subject: re: Joe Quinn
From: joe@sott.net
Date: 28/08/2008 00:43
To: xxx@gmail.com
What's up Angus?
Joe
Comment: His reply:
Subject: re: Joe Quinn
From: xxx@gmail.com
Date: 28/08/2008 01:14
To: joe@sott.net
Hi Joe,
I am hoping to write something about the article you wrote, "Racism, Not Defence..." which is currently causing something of a stir in Britain, not sure if you know that. I had been going through a lot of stuff posted on the internet and attributed to "Joe Quinn", and I was puzzled because there seemed to be two posters with the same uncommon name, and a surprising cross-over of unusual interests - but with a lot of divergences too. As you may already know, (not may, must, because I spoke to the other JQ on the phone less than 10 minutes before you emailed me), I've by now established that there are indeed two of you.
The reason I was trying to get in touch with you was to clarify that very point. But since we are now finally in touch, it would be of help (because accuracy is important to me) if you be kind enough to answer a couple of questions:
1. You co-authored 9-11: the Ultimate Truth, with someone who is very
antisemitic. You must be aware of all this, and presumably agree with much of LKJ's interpretation of reality. Since your 9-11 book doesn't indicate who wrote what, I am curious to know at what point, if any, your own view of 9-11, Zionazis, Lizards, etc. ceases to accord with your co-author's.
2. I imagine that you must be unconcerned, to say the least, that your work is being disseminated on David Duke's and neo-nazi websites. One reason I presume such a thing is that you recommend works by Henry Reed, and in very unpleasant contexts. And another reason is that you have written many articles which I can only interpret as themselves very, very anti-Jewish. What is interesting is that much of the anti-Jewishness that I perceive in your writing is of a quietly understated sort. But not all of it. I can see good reason for the understatement, so why then do you blow your cover by collaborating with LKJ, linking to neo-nazi websites, writing books with Holocaust deniers, and the rest of it?
Hope you have the time to respond,
Angus
Comment: Before I had time to respond "Angus" felt the urge to mail again the next day.
Subject: more questions
From:xxx@gmail.com
Date: 28/08/2008 16:35
To:joe@sott.net
Joe,
I'm hoping that you are going to answer my two questions, but think it might be difficult for you to do so without showing your hand, at it were. But I'm still hoping you're going to answer. In the meantime, here are a few simpler fact-checking questions, you won't be giving too much away by clarifying these points:
Which bits of 9/11: the Ultimate Truth and Essays on Life did you write?
What, if any, other aspects of the books did you contribute? How would you describe your role at SotT: co-editor, monitor, administrator, founder?
Comment: I responded pretty promptly:
Subject: Re: more questions
From: joe@sott.net
Date: 28/08/2008 16:58
To:xxx@gmail.com
an gus wrote:
>Joe,
>I'm hoping that you are going to answer my two questions, but think it >might be difficult for you to do so without showing your hand, at it were. >But I'm still hoping you're going to answer. In the meantime, here are a few >simpler fact-checking questions, you won't be giving too much away by >clarifying these points:
>Which bits of 9/11: the Ultimate Truth and Essays on Life did you write?
>What, if any, other aspects of the books did you contribute? How would >you describe your role at SotT: co-editor, monitor, administrator, founder?
Hey there Gus,
I've been away all day today, so just getting back into things now. Some of your questions require something of an involved answer so it's not just a matter of firing off a few lines, but I'll try to get a more detailed response to you later this evening or tomorrow at the latest.
Joe
Comment: An almost immediate response:
Subject: Re: more questions
From: xxx@gmail.com
Date: 28/08/2008 17:01
To: xxx@gmail.com
That would be great. Thank you.
Comment: But Angus couldn't wait. In the wee hours of the morning, he was getting impatient - his mind must have been racing:
Subject:Re: more questions
From: xxx@gmail.com
Date: 29/08/2008 02:29
To: xxx@gmail.com
"I'll try to get a more detailed response to you later this evening or
tomorrow at the latest."
?
Comment: So the next morning I responded. My answers after Angus' questions:
Subject: Re: more questions
From: joe@sott.net
Date: 30/08/2008 11:51
To: xxx@gmail.com
> I am hoping to write something about the article you wrote, "Racism,
> Not Defence..." which is currently causing something of a stir in
> Britain, not sure if you know that. I had been going through a lot of
> stuff posted on the internet and attributed to "Joe Quinn", and I was
> puzzled because there seemed to be two posters with the same uncommon
> name, and a surprising cross-over of unusual interests - but with a
> lot of divergences too. As you may already know, (not may, must,
> because I spoke to the other JQ on the phone less than 10 minutes
> before you emailed me), I've by now established that there are indeed
> two of you.
>
maybe it's someone trying to impersonate me! ;-)
> The reason I was trying to get in touch with you was to clarify that
> very point. But since we are now finally in touch, it would be of help
> (because accuracy is important to me) if you be kind enough to answer
> a couple of questions:
> 1. You co-authored 9-11: the Ultimate Truth, with someone who is very
> antisemitic.
You mean Laura Knight-Jadczyk? I wasn't aware that she is anti-semitic. Can you point out some examples?
> You must be aware of all this, and presumably agree with
> much of LKJ's interpretation of reality. Since your 9-11 book doesn't
> indicate who wrote what, I am curious to know at what point, if any,
> your own view of 9-11, Zionazis, Lizards, etc. ceases to accord with
> your co-author's.
>
Well, I make up my own mind about reality, and my interpretation of it is generally based on verifiable fact (where available). My experience of LKJ is that she is an excellent researcher with an incisive political mind. She has some pretty far out views, but then most people have 'far out' views on something or other.
> 2. I imagine that you must be unconcerned, to say the least, that your
> work is being disseminated on David Duke's and neo-nazi websites.
Yeah, wasn't aware of that. There isn't much that I can do to prevent my writing from being reproduced anywhere on the web, and most other internet authors are in the same boat because our work is governed by fair use policies. In the case of the article on Dukes website, someone there seems to have complied with my request that it be removed.
> One reason I presume such a thing is that you recommend works by Henry > Reed, and in very unpleasant contexts.
I think you mean Douglas Reed here? Not sure what unpleasant contexts you are referring to.
> And another reason is that you
> have written many articles which I can only interpret as themselves
> very, very anti-Jewish.
That's strange because when I write about the Israel/Palestine situation my angle is always to level criticism at the Israeli government, and in many cases I have expressed concern for the Jewish people of Israel because of the actions of their government. In much the same way, I have expressed concern for the American people under the Bush government.
> What is interesting is that much of the
> anti-Jewishness that I perceive in your writing is of a quietly
> understated sort. But not all of it. I can see good reason for the
> understatement, so why then do you blow your cover by collaborating
> with LKJ, linking to neo-nazi websites, writing books with Holocaust
> deniers, and the rest of it?
>
You kind of lost me here. I don't link to NeoNazi websites or collaborate with Holocaust deniers and I wasn't even aware that I had a 'cover' to be blown!
Joe
Comment: A little over two hours later Angus was back on my case.
Subject: Re: more questions
From: xxx@gmail.com
Date: 30/08/2008 14:32
To: joe@sott.net
You're right, I did mean Douglas Reed. One of the many things you have
in common with David Duke is that you both commend Reed's work, which
is undilutedly antisemitic.
Your co-author's enthusiasm for the Protocols of Zion is one example
of her own antisemitism.
Several passages in the book you co-authored are sympathetic to
fascism. "Read Mein Kampf" is a sentence taken from the last paragraph
of the book. You also quote Joseph Mengele with approval. You also
endorse the antisemitic ideas of Michael Hoffman, including references
to "ritual bloodshed" and 'sacrificial blood ordained to flow if the
Temple was rebuilt".
You also link to Hoffman's "revisionist" website.
You put "Zionists" into quotation marks (this might be called scare
quotes in America, I'm not sure). This punctuation is a clear nod to
the fact that it's not just Zionists that you are talking about, and
that this word should be understood as code.
How about this quote, "The list of Jewish scientific achievements ...
includes atomic bombs and Game Theory. Science, strongly influenced by
the important contributions of so many Jewish scientists ... has
brought mankind to the edge of self-destruction."
Or what about the reference on page 385 to "a culling of the Jewish herd"?
LKJ's views are no more far-out than your own. That's why you The
difference between you is that she doesn't sanitise those far-out
ideas by hiding their fascist origin, or by draping them with the
language of progressive politics, whereas you do both of these things.
The wiggle-room you get by doing that is precisely what makes your
work is popular on neo-nazi sites, not just Duke's. Funny that he was
so ready to oblige you by agreeing to your request to remove it. How
about contacting all the other sites now, and getting them to remove
your work too? And maybe you want to ask Duke to remove the other
articles by you that he posts, eg/ LINK
Any response to the above will be helpful. And also, if you can confirm if it would be accurate to describe you (and LKJ) as co-founders/editors/administrators of www.sott.net, and what that website's relationship to www.cassiopaea.org
Angus
Comment: Then before I could reply, another one hot on the heels of the above:
Subject: also
From: xxx@gmail.com
Date: 30/08/2008 14:51
To: joe@sott.net
There's also this quote from another book you co-authored:
"The real perpetrators [of 9/11] were actually members of a US shadow
government that had been controlling US politics for over 100 years.
... Returning to the question of 9/11, Bush said that the shadow
government, which included highly placed Israelis known as 'NeoCons',
as well as US citizens, planned the attack on 9/11... .
Essays on Life, p. 240"
So you believe a shadow government has been controlling US politics for over 100 years?
Comment: Then my response to his first, which I wrote this evening. My responses appear after Angus' original questions:
Subject:re: more questions
From: joe@sott.net
Date: 30/08/2008 19:23
To: xxx@gmail.com
an gus wrote:
> You're right, I did mean Douglas Reed. One of the many things you have
> in common with David Duke is that you both commend Reed's work, which
> is undilutedly antisemitic.
>
one of the things you have in common with Stalin is the letter "s" in your name. Are you going to use this kind of argument? Where did you study the art of propaganda?
Reed's work is not anti-semitic. Please give evidence why you think it is, and I mean real evidence, not just more unsubstantiated claims that it anti-semitic. You should know by now that throwing the term "anti-semitism" around as you seem to be fond of doing is very damaging to the fight against real anti-semitism. Is that your goal? By libelously and carelessly throwing around the term, are you seeking to make it useless as a way to define those who are truly infected with racist beliefs?
Is this really the way you try to argue your point? Again, where did you study to become so proficient in the art of propaganda?
> Your co-author's enthusiasm for the Protocols of Zion is one example
> of her own antisemitism.
>
Again you are twisting the data, taking it out of context in order to suit your own prejudices. You must hate the truth. Is that so? The "protocols of Zion" are referenced twice in the book. The first is:
"It was after the full horrors of Nazi Germany had been revealed that Western Christianity realized that promoting anti-Semitism, ร la The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, could be seen as sympathizing with the Nazis. So, those fundamentalists who were blatantly anti-Semitic backed up and regrouped."The second is an editors footnote:
"Ed. Note: The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is now well known to have been a hoax attributed to Jews. They could more accurately be called "The Protocols of the Pathocrats". However the contents of the Protocols are clearly not "hoaxed ideas" since a reasonable assessment of the events in the United States over the past 50 years or so gives ample evidence of the application of these Protocols in order to bring about the current neocon administration. Anyone who wishes to understand what has happened in the U.S. only needs to read the Protocols to understand that some group of deviant individuals took them to heart. The document, "Project For A New American Century", produced by the neoconservatives, expresses the same spirit as the Protocols."So, perhaps, before you start writing you should first learn how to read and how to understand what you read. Many people who follow this sequence of learning later became known as good writers. On the other hand, there are few if any at all that became writers without first learning the art of reading and understanding. Are you going to be the first?
> Several passages in the book you co-authored are sympathetic to
> fascism. "Read Mein Kampf" is a sentence taken from the last paragraph
> of the book.
Why do you insist on such blatant twisting and distortion of the facts? Is this really the way you go about making your arguments, with this type of propaganda? The passage "Read Mein Kampf" was first of all a quote from another author and secondly it was very clear that it was being made in the context of suggesting that people read as many works as possible on propaganda techniques, including those used by the Nazis (hence the reference to Mein Kampf which was just one of the sources suggested, others being Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World), in order to better COMBAT government propaganda. Precisely the kind of propaganda that you are USING! Now, have YOU read Mein Kampf? Is that where you are getting your style of argumentation from?
> You also quote Joseph Mengele with approval.
Again, more twisting, more distortion, more apparently deliberate taking of things out of context. I have to say, this is Goebbels-type propaganda that you are using against me. The "big lie" etc. Why are you doing it? Why don't you give the full context? What are you deliberately trying to create false images?
The only reference to Mengele in the book is preceded by four paragraphs quoted from a mainstream news article which states:
"American scientists have declared that in ten years they will succeed in creating a radically new type of biological weapon. This weapon would be capable of infecting people according to a genetically predetermined marker such as skin color or eye shape. Infection could have a delayed effect or only begin once a certain type of medicine was taken. A recent closed seminar held by the CIA was devoted to the topic. The event took place as part of the Project for the New American Century"Then comes our comment that references Mengele:
Yet the most terrifying new possibility is the hypothetical biological weapon that could infect people according to genetic markers. Not only would it allow for genocide; it would be created specifically for that purpose. A recent report by the British Medical Association stated that 'the rapid progress in genetics could become the basis for ethnic cleansing on an unheard of scale in the near future'. [...]
Three years ago, ideologues like U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and PNAC Director William Kristol were already discussing genetic weapons. They recommended that the Pentagon consider the possibility for using this type of weapon not only to successfully wage war, but also to reconfigure world politics. According to a PNAC report, genetic weapons could completely change the politics of the entire planet: 'cutting-edge biological warfare targeting a certain genotype could turn the reign of terrorism into a politically useful tool'.
According to information from PNAC, Israel has also recently begun to work actively on mutagenic weapons. Israel geneticists confirm that Arabs carry a unique gene that no one else in the world has. This gene forms the basis for the Israeli research, believe American experts."
Fortunately, it is not as easy to create a selective biological weapon as some scientists are claiming. Though it may be possible to create bacteria that multiply only when a person takes a specific medication, the creation of an effective genetic weapon that would not harm the developers themselves seems unrealistic in the foreseeable future.
"There is one more reason that is raised as to why this kind of biological weapon is unlikely to be as effective as the ideologues would wish. As Nazi doctor Josef Mengele put it, "Scratch a Frenchman and find an African". Humanity has existed for many millennia. In the context of all our past tribal and intertribal connections, it is not far from the truth to say that we are all brothers. "Over the many years of human existence, ethnic groups have intermingled to such an extent that the genetic structures determining ethnic identity have blurred and become difficult to recognize", notes Prozorov."Now, how can it not be OBVIOUS to you that the reason that Mengele was referenced was because the "ethnic specific weapons" being worked on by US and Israeli governments present frightening parallels to the genetic experiments of Nazis like Mengele? And how can it not be obvious to you that all of this was being discussed in a way that made it abundantly clear that we are staunchly opposed to such racist ideas? Of course it is obvious to you, yet you want to distort this truth and through scurrilous manipulation depcit me as precisely the opposite of what I am. So tell me, why do you do it? Do you hate the truth so much?
> You also
> endorse the antisemitic ideas of Michael Hoffman, including references
> to "ritual bloodshed" and 'sacrificial blood ordained to flow if the
> Temple was rebuilt".
>
Is this all you can do? More out of context references in an attempt to distort the truth? Hoffman was referenced once in the book and the quotes you mention were part of a broad analysis of biblical "end-times" prophecies which pulled on many different sources. But in your twisted logic, this means that we "endorse the antisemitic ideas of Michael Hoffman". Are you sure you're not drunk?
> You also link to Hoffman's "revisionist" website.
>
You're really reaching now. The link was a footnote reference to the quote from Hoffman on biblical "endtimes" it is standard practice for a well researched and referenced book. In any case, we also reference "Zionist" websites in the book. What does that make us?
> You put "Zionists" into quotation marks (this might be called scare
> quotes in America, I'm not sure).
I have no idea what you are talking about. "Scare quotes"? Are you serious?? Was your use of quotes around the word "revisionist" above an example of "scare quotes"? Was I meant to be scared? I really have no idea what you are talking about here.
> This punctuation is a clear nod to
> the fact that it's not just Zionists that you are talking about, and
> that this word should be understood as code.
>
Now you're talking like a conspiracy theorist. Tell me, who is meant to understand this secret "code" that you claim we put in the book? Everyone, or only an "initiated elite"? Or is it a "code" like your abuse of the term "anti-semitism" is a "code" that is designed to slander and defame people so they stop standing up against racism and brutality?
> How about this quote, "The list of Jewish scientific achievements ...
> includes atomic bombs and Game Theory. Science, strongly influenced by
> the important contributions of so many Jewish scientists ... has
> brought mankind to the edge of self-destruction."
>
What about it? It is a distillation of the opinion of Kevin McDonald, a well respected Professor of evolutionary Psychology at California state university. See his bio here: LINK
Here is the full passage from our book:
"Kevin MacDonald writes in The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements:So what is your point, other than to distort and twist? Einstein was Jewish, he, along with the Western scientific establishment, played a major role in the creation of the atomic bomb, which has indeed brought humanity to the brink of destruction. Do you agree?"Jews have indeed made positive contributions to Western culture in the last 200 years. But whatever one might think are the unique and irreplaceable Jewish contributions to the post-Enlightenment world, it is naรฏve to suppose they were intended for the purpose of benefiting humanity solely or even primarily"I would like to point out that the list of Jewish scientific achievements from the quote above includes atomic bombs and Game Theory. Science, strongly influenced by the important contributions of so many Jewish scientists, has indeed exploded - no pun intended - and it has brought mankind to the edge of self-destruction. Advances in mathematical, physical and computer sciences have brought about "applied game theory", where "wars" are called "games", and to "win the game" is to kill as many people as possible with as little cost as possible."
> Or what about the reference on page 385 to "a culling of the Jewish herd"?
>
What about it? Would you like to present the context? Or would that ruin your attempts to slander? "Culling of the herd" is used a few times in the book in reference to the agenda of psychopathic leaders to kill millions of ordinary people through needless war. The term is deliberately used to suggest the idea that these psychopaths view us in much the same way as a farmer views his cattle. The previous reference is on page 350 where it is stated:
"The above paragraph [from the book Political Ponerology] is perhaps one of the most important and chilling things that Lobaczewski [the author]writes. The pathocracy ensures its continued hold on power by periodically engaging in reduction of the population of normal people - culling the herd - chiefly by means of manufactured war."Later, the quote you reference on page 385 forms part of these two sentences:
"In Lenni Brenner's book 51 Documents: Zionist collaboration with the Nazis, Brenner presents historical documents that show that certain Zionist leaders assisted in "selecting" which Jews did or did not go to their deaths during WWII. I would like to speculate that this maneuver may very well have been predicated upon the psychopaths "special knowledge" and ability to recognize other psychopaths. Thus, a culling of the actual Jewish herd was first on the agenda in order to create a Master Race to control and direct the current psychopathic end game."So the context is clear, we are saying that Jews during the Nazi era were indeed slaughtered, they were "culled", like so many other people have been by psychopathic leaders, most recently the "culling" of well over 1 million Iraqis (so far)
Why do you do it Angus? Why do you insist on using selection and substitution of data which leads you to a chronic avoidance of the truth? Why do you avoid the truth 'like the plague' in this way?
> LKJ's views are no more far-out than your own. The
> difference between you is that she doesn't sanitise those far-out
> ideas by hiding their fascist origin, or by draping them with the
> language of progressive politics, whereas you do both of these things.
>
There is no fascist origin to my ideas. You, on the other hand, based on your twists and manipulations as demonstrated above, seem to be reading directly from Goebbels book of propaganda.
> The wiggle-room you get by doing that is precisely what makes your
> work is popular on neo-nazi sites, not just Duke's.
Now you're just plain lying. Please provide proof that my writing is "so popular on neo-nazi sites". In any case, great philosophers were popular with many fascist regimes, does that make the philosophers Nazis?
> Funny that he was so ready to oblige you by agreeing to your request to remove it.
Ah yes, now comes the nasty insinuation. So you are implying that I have some relationship with Duke because he complied with my request to remove my article from his web site. Do your friends know that you are so prone to paranoia and conspiratorially-minded? Maybe I sent Duke a "code", eh?
But then, if I follow your reasoning one step further: perhaps you have a relationship with Duke? Both of you have the letter "u" in common, and both of you use faulty logic....
> How about contacting all the other sites now, and getting them to remove
> your work too? And maybe you want to ask Duke to remove the other
> articles by you that he posts, eg/ LINK
>
Duke is not my problem. The Truth is. Apparently it is not your problem however.
> Any response to the above will be helpful. And also, if you can
> confirm if it would be accurate to describe you (and LKJ) as
> co-founders/editors/administrators of www.sott.net, and what that
> website's relationship to www.cassiopaea.org
>
That would be highly inaccurate.
Joe
Comment: Next, my response to his shorter email about believing in a "shadow government":
Subject: re: also
From: joe@sott.net
Date: 30/08/2008 19:33
To:xxx@gmail.com
an gus wrote:
> There's also this quote from another book you co-authored:
> "The real perpetrators [of 9/11] were actually members of a US shadow
> government that had been controlling US politics for over 100 years.
> ... Returning to the question of 9/11, Bush said that the shadow
> government, which included highly placed Israelis known as 'NeoCons',
> as well as US citizens, planned the attack on 9/11... .
> Essays on Life, p. 240"
>
> So you believe a shadow government has been controlling US politics
> for over 100 years?
>
I do not BELIEVE anything in the sense that some Israelis, for example, may BELIEVE that they are the "chosen nation". Or some Americans may BELIEVE that they live in the greatest country on earth.
What I do is gather objective data, as much as possible, and then form working hypotheses. When new data comes, and it comes often, I adjust my hypotheses.
By the way, this particular hypothesis that you quote above is not so unusual. You should check, study the subject in depth, then after you do your homework, perhaps you will write what you have discovered? That is they way science works.
Since I try to help others when I can, I will give you a few leads to start you off:
Watch this short video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbFphX5zb8w
and then see the person in question's bio here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Inouye
Then consider the words of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in 1913:
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)Then the words of President Roosevelt in a letter to Colonel House, November 1933 available from the Sterling Library at Yale University:
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."Then the words of former former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the CIA, Victor Marchetti in his book: The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence
"There exists in our nation today a powerful and dangerous secret cult -- the cult of intelligence. Its holy men are the clandestine professionals of the Central Intelligence Agency. Its patrons and protectors are the highest officials of the federal government. Its membership, extending far beyond governmental circles, reaches into the power centers of industry, commerce, finance, and labor. Its friends are many in the areas of important public influence -- the academic world and the communications media. The cult of intelligence is a secret fraternity of the American political aristocracy."And an endorsement of Marchetti's words by former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, William Colby:
"Socially as well as professionally they cliqued together, forming a sealed fraternity. They ate together at their own special favorite restaurants; they partied almost only among themselves; their families drifted to each other, so their defenses did not always have to be up. In this way they increasingly separated themselves from the ordinary world and developed a rather skewed view of that world. Their own dedicated double life became the proper norm, and they looked down on the life of the rest of the citizenry. And out of this grew what was later named -- and condemned -- as the "cult" of intelligence, an inbred, distorted, elitist view of intelligence that held it to be above the normal processes of society, with its own rationale and justification, beyond the restraints of the Constitution, which applied to everything and everyone else."Joe
Comment: Angus blithely ignored all of the above and just kept on coming!
Subject: re: also
From: xxx@gmail.com
Date: 30/08/2008 20:07
To: joe@sott.net
Here are some more reasons why I maintain that you and your associates
are antisemitic:
1. 'Say WHAT? They didn't "write down the names of those executed in
the (alleged) gas chambers" ??? !!!'
[take note of the above comment, I'll deal with it at the end]
Most people agree that Holocaust denial is antisemitic
2. You quote Joseph Mengele in the book.
3. The last paragraph of your book says "Read Mein Kampf"
4. The website you edit links to Michael Hoffmann's revisionist site, Jewish Tribal Review, Israel Shamir, TruthSeeker, Knud Eriksen, and others.
5. In one of your books, it claims that the US has been run by a shadow government for 100 years. On your website, this repeated, with an added insistence that this is the truth.
6. You claim to be interested in facts, fairness, balance. But you are obsessed by one thing: the root of evil.
7. You wholeheartedly endorse a book which runs along these lines;
'In every other respect [The Protocols] is of inestimable importance, for it is shown by the conclusive test (that of subsequent events) to be an authentic document of the world-conspiracy first disclosed by Weishaupt's papers. Many other documents in the same series had followed that first revelation, as I have shown, but this one transcends all of them. The others were fragmentary and gave glimpses; this one gives the entire picture of the conspiracy, motive, method and objective. It adds nothing new to what had been revealed in parts (save for the unproven, attribution to Jewish elders themselves), but it puts all the parts in place and exposes the whole. It accurately depicts all that has come about in the fifty years since it was published, and what clearly will follow in the next fifty years unless in that time the force which the conspiracy has generated produces the counter-force."
8. Or how about this from your own book:
Again and again we are disturbed by the niggling thought that the Bible was assembled by individuals who had "foreknowledge." And that this information was not favorable to the Jews. It is almost as though someone traveled into the past to "plant" the Bible for nefarious purposes intended to come to fruition in the present time.
9. And what about your use of the phrase "nice Israeli boy" in your 9/11 book? Or was that your co-author's coinage? Can we expect you now to disassociate yourself from her? It would be helpful if you would clarify if sott is your website, if you are an editor, contributor.
10. Whatever your official title at your website, I presume you endorse, and perhaps wrote, the following:
'Earth benefits in form of periodic cleansing. Time to start paying
attention to the signs. They are escalating. They can even be 'felt'
by you and others, if you pay attention.'
[This is quote is unattributed but cited as one of the SotT editors'
eIght favourite quotes. You are one of those editors, and the most
prolific. Another of the eight favourite quotes is by "Dr. Joseph M.
Goebbels". Funny favorite quotes for someone who professes to be
anti-racist.
Hope you have time to answer, I have to finish my text, I mean propaganda, today.
Comment: And as if motivated by some preternatural force, he just couldn't stop:
Subject: re: more questions
From: xxx@gmail.com
Date: 30/08/2008 20:32
To: joe@sott.net
I missed one thing; I maintain that to put the word Zionist in quotes is to indicate that it is coded. If it is not coded, why put the word into quotes. It's not a quotation and it can't be typo. So why put it in quotes? You wouldn't put words like Nazi or Republican in quotes.
Comment: And more! Angus is a very impatient person! He has his article on Sott.net to write, "gimme the goods! Now!"
Subject: lastly
From:xxx@gmail.com
Date: 30/08/2008 21:06
To: joe@sott.net
I'm still waiting to hear if you and your co-authors/co-editors [it would be helpful if you indicated how I should describe your roles] diverge, at all, on the subjects of Jews, Zionists, Israelis, Psychopaths, Lizards, etc.
***
At this point, I didn't really see any point in continuing, but Angus' attitude had given us a great insight into the mind of... well, what are we looking at here? Thankfully, the type of substitution and selection of data leading to a chronic avoidance of the crux of the matter that Angus displays is all too common among "authoritarian personality" types. They are the ones that need a "strong" authority, a "confident" and absolutely "certain" leader or classically right-wing cause to follow. Interestingly, we have seen very similar types on the Sott.net forum very recently who were attempting to bait our members into denying the Holocaust. In fact, Angus' quote above relates to this very forum discussion:
'Say WHAT? They didn't "write down the names of those executed inis taken directly from our forum. See this link for the specific thread, and please read the entire thread.
the (alleged) gas chambers" ??? !!!'
In the end, perhaps the best description of the type of "logic" used by Angus is found in Andrew Lobaczewski's Political Ponerology:
Schizoid [psychopath] characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual's personality, which causes the latter's behavior to turn desperately illogical.The definiton of 'Paramoralism' is also a perfect description of Angus' mentality:
They may also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they have joined. They are psychological loners who feel better in some human organization, wherein they become zealots for some ideology, religious bigots, materialists, or adherents of an ideology with satanic features. If their activities consist of direct contact on a small social scale, their acquaintances easily perceive them to be eccentric, which limits their ponerogenic role. However, if they manage to hide their own personality behind the written word, their influence may poison the minds of society in a wide scale and for a long time.
From Enpsychopedia:
Paramoralism is a technique used by psychopaths and other pathological individuals to direct normal human behavior in a direction of their choice. It can take the form of verbal epithets which carry a special flavor of suggestion implying the target's "otherness" (e.g. "witch", "heretic", "traitor", "terrorist", "Communist", "Capitalist", "Nazi", "Fascist", even "psychopath"). These are used on political opponents and other dissidents whose voice would otherwise bring attention to the pathological nature of the system which must make use of such epithets.As a final note, while I didn't actually respond to Angus' 10 point email near the end of the exchange, here is what I would have said:
Paramoralism is also a product of false moral logic, which can be engaged in purposefully or as a result of conversive thinking. For example, Right Wing Authoritarians view the law as the final arbiter of behavior, and their leaders as above the law. Such an individual may say, "They broke the law, they deserve the punishment!" even if the law is arbitrary and the punishment is vastly out of proportion to the behavior.
In a pathocratic system, paramoralism creates an arbitrary pseudo-morality where everything that hinders the pathocracy's aim is labelled immoral and illegal. On the contrary, pathological behavior and benign behavior which does not threaten the pathocrats' rule is deemed moral and legal. For example, criticizing other forms of government is encouraged while criticism of the pathocracy is treasonous; torture in other countries is a sign of their depravity yet torture in pathocracy is a necessary measure taken against external and internal threats.
Angus wrote:
> 2. You quote Joseph Mengele in the book.
So let me get this straight, in your opinion, if anyone quotes any Nazi in any context it is anti-semitic?
> 3. The last paragraph of your book says "Read Mein Kampf"
So let me get this straight, if a person suggests that someone should read Mein Kampf, for any reason, then that person is anti-semitic?
> 4. The website you edit links to Michael Hoffmann's revisionist site,
> Jewish Tribal Review, Israel Shamir, TruthSeeker, Knud Eriksen, and
> others.
>
So let me get this straight, if a person links to any of the above sites, for any reason, then that person is anti-semitic?
> 5. In one of your books, it claims that the US has been run by a
> shadow government for 100 years. On your website, this repeated, with
> an added insistence that this is the truth.
>
So let me get this straight. If a person quotes the words of two former US presidents, a current member of the US Senate and a former Head of the CIA, words which strongly suggest the existence of a small group of people behind the US government, then that person is an anti-semite for giving credence to the idea?
> 6. You claim to be interested in facts, fairness, balance. But you are
> obsessed by one thing: the root of evil.
>
So let me get this straight. A person who is interested in the root of evil is an anti-semite?
> 7. You wholeheartedly endorse a book which runs along these lines;
> 'In every other respect [The Protocols] is of inestimable importance,
> for it is shown by the conclusive test (that of subsequent events) to
> be an authentic document of the world-conspiracy first disclosed by
> Weishaupt's papers. Many other documents in the same series had
> followed that first revelation, as I have shown, but this one
> transcends all of them. The others were fragmentary and gave glimpses;
> this one gives the entire picture of the conspiracy, motive, method
> and objective. It adds nothing new to what had been revealed in parts
> (save for the unproven, attribution to Jewish elders themselves), but
> it puts all the parts in place and exposes the whole. It accurately
> depicts all that has come about in the fifty years since it was
> published, and what clearly will follow in the next fifty years unless
> in that time the force which the conspiracy has generated produces the
> counter-force."
Angus is referencing Douglas Reed's book "Controversy of Zion." I challenge anyone to read it and find proof in there that Reed was anti-semitic. He wasn't. He exposed the history of Zionism with great sympathy for the masses of Jews, most of whom were opposed to Zionism. Until, of course, those opposed were eliminated in the Nazi gas chambers. All six million (or more) of them. Meanwhile, as Hannah Arendt reports in her book "Eichmann in Jerusalem," many criminal Jews were saved and sent to Israel to become the "founding fathers."
> 8. Or how about this from your own book:
> Again and again we are disturbed by the niggling thought that the
> Bible was assembled by individuals who had "foreknowledge." And that
> this information was not favorable to the Jews. It is almost as though
> someone traveled into the past to "plant" the Bible for nefarious
> purposes intended to come to fruition in the present time.
>
So let me get this straight. To state the proven fact that the bible was assembled by many different people, and that many fundamentalist Christians believe that their "end time prophecy" declares that Jews must convert or be destroyed, makes a person anti-semitic?
> 9. And what about your use of the phrase "nice Israeli boy" in your
> 9/11 book? Or was that your co-author's coinage?
The phrase "nice Israeli boy" does not appear in 9/11: The Ultimate Truth. In any case, are you saying that using the term "nice Israeli boy" is anti-semitic?
>10. Whatever your official title at your website, I presume you endorse, and perhaps wrote, the following:
>'Earth benefits in form of periodic cleansing. Time to start paying
attention to the signs. They are escalating. They can even be 'felt'
by you and others, if you pay attention.'
Here the quote is from the Cassiopaean Experiment and refers to cometary bombardment of the planet, an event prophesied to be in our future - a prophesy that happens to have a great deal of scientific support.
With friends like Angus, the Jews don't need enemies; the struggle against anti-semitism and racism of all kinds is dead in the water.
Just, Wow.
He was like a bot, and so typical that he decided to ignore your points/responses...
I wonder what kind of article he ends up releasing.