Fetzer supports Trump, gets fired from Barrett's show

WilliamSeger

Philosopher
WilliamSeger
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
5,092
Kevin Barrett has a webcast on NoLiesRadio.org called False Flag Weekly Report, which until very recently featured Jim Fetzer as co-host. But...

Note to our loyal viewers from No Lies Radio:
If you have been watching our recent shows it is obvious that Kevin and Jim have developed irreconcilable differences and as a consequence things simply blew up: Kevin fired Jim and Jim quit. They cannot work together anymore. Jim is moving on with some new shows of his own. Kevin will continue to anchor False Flag Weekly news with a variety of national and international guest anchors to give brand new perspectives on the news we report. We at No Lies Radio appreciate the service that Jim gave to this show and wish him well with his new shows.
Click to expand...
http://noliesradio.org/archives/107938

Their last archived show together was on December 10, with Barrett (a Muslim) reporting from Paris where he was attending a "False Flag Islamophobia Conference" (which he says is a protest to another Islamophobia conference that had rejected his paper on "False Flags and Islamophobia"). Barrett talks about Donald Trump "saying Muslims shouldn't be allowed into the United States. That means, I guess, I'd have to stay here in Paris. I couldn't get back in. I'm gonna have to ask Jim Fetzer to explain what's going on with Donald Trump," It turns out, Fetzer is down with that plan, so things heat up. Then something triggers Fetzer into attacking Barrett for being homophobic and Barrett counters by calling Fetzer a "bombastic loudmouth *******." They managed to finish the show, but apparently continued the discussion later...

http://noliesradio.org/archives/107649
 
Classic! Is there anything that has more entertainment value that either one of these two clowns? Fetzer/Barrett...its like Truther Kindergarten, a couple of 5 year olds yelling "Oh, yeah??" at each other. Wait...a couple of 5 year olds would show more maturity.
 
For those who can't stand to listen to a full hour of Fetzer's loud-mouthed bombast, fast forward to 32:00 minutes for the climax of entertainment value. Warning: Not safe for children's ears! :D
 
Looks like Fetzer has melanoma on his forehead... This is hysterical...Fundamentalism meets narcissistic moron.
 
Oystein said:
For those who can't stand to listen to a full hour of Fetzer's loud-mouthed bombast, fast forward to 32:00 minutes for the climax of entertainment value. Warning: Not safe for children's ears! :D
Click to expand...

If you listen from 29:00 you get what I think is important context. I thought Fetzer's anger at Barrett was a perfectly justified response to extreme homophobia.

Here's a transcript of 29:03-31:43:

29:03-31:43 said:
- ...Kevin I'm sorry to say that, of course, you are among those who display the homophobia that is typical of Muslims.

- Not at all, Jim. I used to walk down the streets of Morocco holding hands with my father in law. Love between people of the same gender is wonderful, but sodomy is, of course, an unnatural act, it's banned from a great many cultures and was banned from our culture very recently too and now let's all get on our high-horse and say, 'Oh well, the way we live now in the last 2 decades or 1 decade or whatever, maybe 3 decades over in San Francisco, is the only way that anybody can live and all those other people throughout all of history and all these cultures, including our own culture for 99.999 percent of our own cultural history, we were all evil! Just homophobes!' I mean talk about narrow-mindedness, talk about bigotry, talk about idiocy, talk about utter and complete ignorance, living in only one brief moment of the present and saying, 'The way I live now is the only way humans can live and anybody else is a...whatever.' Call a name, you know, 'homophobe', whatever. You know it just shows that people who think that way just show what complete and utter morons they are.

- Kevin I have been simply astonished on this very show when you display your utter contempt for homosexuals. I'm a different strokes for different folks kind of guy.

- Jim, I don't have any contempt whatsoever for homosexuals, I have friends who are homo...who think of themselves as homosexual, I don't have a problem with people. I do think that it makes...there's nothing wrong with the vast majority of cultures and virtually all of western cultural history which includes Islamic but which is also Jewish and Christian, has said that it's wrong to have these particular sexual acts. There are lots of sexual acts between people of the same gender that are equally wrong, such as anything outside of marriage. That is...so trying to call me a bigot against a class of people is completely insane. You know you're basically...you're slandering me.

- Kevin, you've proven my point. I don't have to slander. The truth is an absolute defence against slander. You made the strongest anti-homosexual remarks I've ever encountered from anyone of my personal acquaintance right on this show, Kevin. Our viewers can go back and document it for themselves. You're offering a pretence, a vague apology for positions you advocate intensely. And I cannot admire you for that.

- What position are you talking about?

- Your anti-sodomy rants Kevin, that have taken place on this very program in past episodes.
Click to expand...

ETA: I haven't heard any more of this episode than this section and a few minutes more, and haven't heard any of the other episodes.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I thought that the position on homosexuality that Barrett explains there is relatively reasonable. I disagree with the opinion that sodomy (read: anal sex) is "of course, an unnatural act" and disagree separately with the moral maxim that therefore sodomy ought to be considered immoral and be banned, but he is quite correct that my position has only very recently enjoyed relatively widespread acceptance, and only in a few countries and societies, while in most of the world, in all major religions, and throughout almost all of the "enlightened" history of the west, Barrett's position has been mainstream. He thus has a point when he spots Fetzer on a high horse.

Then again, I haven't heard enough from Barrett to know whether perhaps Fetzer is correct when he claims that Barrett has displayed on the show "utter contempt for homosexuals", or whether Barrett is justified to claim that he "do[es]n't have any contempt whatsoever for homosexuals" - separating people from their chosen actions.
 
Oystein said:
Actually, I thought that the position on homosexuality that Barrett explains there is relatively reasonable.
Click to expand...

It might be reasonable to point out the fact that a certain view has been the mainstream view historically, but it's not reasonable to therefore conclude that there's 'nothing wrong' with that view, as Barrett does:

I do think that it makes...there's nothing wrong with the vast majority of cultures and virtually all of western cultural history which includes Islamic but which is also Jewish and Christian, has said that it's wrong to have these particular sexual acts.
Click to expand...
 
Georgio said:
It might be reasonable to point out the fact that a certain view has been the mainstream view historically, but it's not reasonable to therefore conclude that there's 'nothing wrong' with that view, as Barrett does:
Click to expand...

Hence "relatively".
 
Oystein said:
Actually, I thought that the position on homosexuality that Barrett explains there is relatively reasonable. I disagree with the opinion that sodomy (read: anal sex) is "of course, an unnatural act" and disagree separately with the moral maxim that therefore sodomy ought to be considered immoral and be banned, but he is quite correct that my position has only very recently enjoyed relatively widespread acceptance, and only in a few countries and societies, while in most of the world, in all major religions, and throughout almost all of the "enlightened" history of the west, Barrett's position has been mainstream. He thus has a point when he spots Fetzer on a high horse.

Then again, I haven't heard enough from Barrett to know whether perhaps Fetzer is correct when he claims that Barrett has displayed on the show "utter contempt for homosexuals", or whether Barrett is justified to claim that he "do[es]n't have any contempt whatsoever for homosexuals" - separating people from their chosen actions.
Click to expand...


Barrett has lived in a Bus under a bridge in San Fransisco for a while, he has no time for bigotry. Uncle Fetzer has been burned from all sides including "Veterans Today" where he has been kicked out a year or so ago. I once had him on my "shill list" but by now I have learned about hardcore US individualism and think he doesn't care too much.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I can't make sense of that sentence.
Click to expand...
You argued, didn't you, that Barrett can't be a bigot since he lives, or used to live, in precarious conditions.
That's fallacious.

Childlike Empress said:
It's interesting, though, that in Anglo parlor "Sodomy" seems to mean "Anal sex", while in German it means "Sex with Animals". Luther's fault?
Click to expand...
In Genesis, the men from Sodom who besieged Lot's house wanted to have homosexual intercourse with Lot's guests (or rape his daughter, or do worse with Lot himself). That's the story whence the term is derived.
Don't know where, when and how zoophilie entered in. That isn't limited to German, but it seems in most countries and languages, "sodomy" refers to anal penetration more or less exclusively.
Similar terms (derived from the Quran, which has its own version of the Lot story) exist in Arabic and Persian, based on the name "Lot" rather than "Sodom".
 
Childlike Empress said:
Uncle Fetzer has been burned from all sides including "Veterans Today" where he has been kicked out a year or so ago. I once had him on my "shill list" but by now I have learned about hardcore US individualism and think he doesn't care too much.
Click to expand...

Has Fetzer embraced flat-earthism yet? It can only be a matter of time, since there are younger guys like Eric Dubay who are pushing zeteticism alongside dozens of other fringe ideas, served up with the usual side-orders of Holocaust denial and extreme anti-Zionism.
 
IIRC in English Common Law sodomy included both buggery and bestiality. With buggery in turn including oral or anal penetration by the penis. :teacher:

No guarantee on those historic definitions - and no prize for the first to prove me wrong. :o
 
Made for eachother... sad to see them break up... Hard to listen to either of these gasbags... but I do hear them occasionally on Guns And Butter...
 
Nick Terry said:
Has Fetzer embraced flat-earthism yet? It can only be a matter of time, since there are younger guys like Eric Dubay who are pushing zeteticism alongside dozens of other fringe ideas, served up with the usual side-orders of Holocaust denial and extreme anti-Zionism.
Click to expand...


I don't know about Fetzer's view on the shape of the earth. I actually listen frequently to Barrett's radio show, but not to Fetzer's. I like that you use the term "extreme anti-Zionism" because moderate anti-Zionism should be a position held by every Humanist.
 
I don't mean to side line this thread... Zionism seems to be no different than other "movements" for self determination and a nation status... Sure it's about real estate. And people fight over real estate all the time. And fighting is not a good thing in almost all cases.

My understanding of the history of the region is unclear and of course both sides seem to making a claim for the same real estate... Of course it would be better if they could just share and live together... but if they can't they need to divide it up.

I thought that Jordan was supposed to be the state for the Arabs. Although "resettlement" seems weird and often "unfair"... millions were resettled in Pakistan I believe.

I've also wondered by with the arab lands so huge and their oil wealth so vast that they didn't just give the "Palestinians" land and build them something like Dubai... more modest of course.

Jeruselum is the thing they all fight over and so that is where the UN should be sited and not belong to anyone.... open to all...

The ME is way too violent and full of weird ideas...(mostly religious in origin) and has become a huge problem for the entire world... and may light up the next world war.
 
Oystein said:
In Genesis, the men from Sodom who besieged Lot's house wanted to have homosexual intercourse with Lot's guests (or rape his daughter, or do worse with Lot himself). That's the story whence the term is derived.
Don't know where, when and how zoophilie entered in. That isn't limited to German, but it seems in most countries and languages, "sodomy" refers to anal penetration more or less exclusively.
Similar terms (derived from the Quran, which has its own version of the Lot story) exist in Arabic and Persian, based on the name "Lot" rather than "Sodom".
Click to expand...
Yes, a group gathered at Lot's door wanting to have apparently homesexual relations with his male guests. Lot , in an attempt to mollify them , offers his daughter for them to rape. Given that such an offer was acceptable at one time, I assume Kevin Barrett would defend those who might still see it as a valid alternative to homosexual rape.
 
Oystein said:
Actually, I thought that the position on homosexuality that Barrett explains there is relatively reasonable. I disagree with the opinion that sodomy (read: anal sex) is "of course, an unnatural act" and disagree separately with the moral maxim that therefore sodomy ought to be considered immoral and be banned...
Click to expand...


It's not "unnatural" for the simple fact that it occurs "in nature". I once had a male dog who, from birth, was intensely attracted to other male dogs, and would attempt to have anal sex with them. OTOH, he would run away, yiping, from females in heat. My father was intensely disappointed, as our dog was a purebred of a relatively rare breed, and he was looking forward to some handsome stud fees. But it was not to be.....:rolleyes:
 
"Veterans Today" burned Fetzer? lol - the dumbest publication full of BS on earth. Fetzer and Veterans Today are both full of BS based on overwhelming ignorance, like the kind CrazyIdiotsTeam, CIT nuts have.

Barrett, Fetzer, Veterans Today, and CIT - BS and lies.
 
jaydeehess said:
Yes, a group gathered at Lot's door wanting to have apparently homesexual relations with his male guests. Lot , in an attempt to mollify them , offers his daughter for them to rape. Given that such an offer was acceptable at one time, I assume Kevin Barrett would defend those who might still see it as a valid alternative to homosexual rape.
Click to expand...

I always see things like that as an offer from the requesting parties to receive a load of buckshot or 10.
 
Oystein said:
Hence "relatively".
Click to expand...

His position seems to be that since a great many people believed something in the past, that means it's true, or more generously that that has something to do with whether it's true or not.

I don't think such a position even qualifies as 'relatively reasonable'. It's the opposite of reasonable.

I should add that of course I realize you aren't defending Barrett's position.
 
Georgio said:
His position seems to be that since a great many people believed something in the past, that means it's true, or more generously that that has something to do with whether it's true or not.

I don't think such a position even qualifies as 'relatively reasonable'. It's the opposite of reasonable.
Click to expand...

Why not? Surely the people who evaluated the issue before were of the same caliber as those evaluating it now. It may be that new information has come along to alter the landscape, but historical analysis ought to have some value. Furthermore, we are no more protected from being wrong than they were.

One should be cautious and not fall into the trap of temporalcentricism.
 
marplots said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

You answered your own question:

...new information has come along to alter the landscape,
Click to expand...

Comparative cultural studies in both humans and non humans show that there is no justification for labelling male anal sex or homosexuality unnatural.

...historical analysis ought to have some value.
Click to expand...
Absolute nonsense, other than for social historians.

Analyses based on ideas that have been shown to be wrong should not inform anyone's position. You don't think doctors should still be trying to balance the humors as well as administering antibiotics, surely?
 
Georgio said:
You answered your own question:

Comparative cultural studies in both humans and non humans show that there is no justification for labelling male anal sex or homosexuality unnatural.

Absolute nonsense, other than for social historians.

Analyses based on ideas that have been shown to be wrong should not inform anyone's position. You don't think doctors should still be trying to balance the humors as well as administering antibiotics, surely?
Click to expand...

No, but neither would I discount Newton or Plato. I wasn't objecting to anything about anal sex, but about adopting a position of trivializing past understandings as a general rule.

Anal sex is a preference. It matters not a bit whether it's natural or not. Even if we made the case that it was unhealthy, that wouldn't matter either. I am free to make unhealthy choices.
 
Georgio said:
His position seems to be that since a great many people believed something in the past,
Click to expand...
A great many people still do in the present, as Barrett correctly points out.

Georgio said:
that means it's true, or more generously that that has something to do with whether it's true or not.

I don't think such a position even qualifies as 'relatively reasonable'. It's the opposite of reasonable.
Click to expand...
Barrett is commenting on the ethical status of anal sex. This is a personal judgment derived from some ideology, and thus not subject to determination of "truth" in the scientific sense. It is thus not subject to reason within the framework ob rational objectivity.

You can reason within the framework of a given ideology, which in Barrett's case may be Islam, perhaps with western (US traditional...) values mixed in for good measure, and he wouldn't be wrong or irrational if he framed his argument thusly.

His argument is directed at Fetzer, who assumes that accepting homosexual activity as a given, and Barrett points out that it isn't a given if seen from a larger cultural and historical perspective.

Georgio said:
I should add that of course I realize you aren't defending Barrett's position.
Click to expand...
Understood
I clearly side with Fetzer and against Barrett, but realise it's a moral opinion derived from a rather modern ideological framework.
 
Oystein said:
Barrett is commenting on the ethical status of anal sex. This is a personal judgment derived from some ideology, and thus not subject to determination of "truth" in the scientific sense. It is thus not subject to reason within the framework ob rational objectivity.
Click to expand...
But the ethical determination that it is 'wrong' relies on the scientifically falsifiable (and falsified) notion that it is 'an unnatural act'. Now that we know homosexuaity and anal sex between males is not unnatural, any ethical position that relies on that notion cannot be called reasonable or 'relatively reasonable'.
 
Georgio said:
But the ethical determination that it is 'wrong' relies on the scientifically falsifiable (and falsified) notion that it is 'an unnatural act'. Now that we know homosexuaity and anal sex between males is not unnatural, any ethical position that relies on that notion cannot be called reasonable or 'relatively reasonable'.
Click to expand...

You are correct as long as you are not arguing from a base premise that something like a "god" created the universe and humankind and set rules for humans.
 
Georgio said:
But the ethical determination that it is 'wrong' relies on the scientifically falsifiable (and falsified) notion that it is 'an unnatural act'. Now that we know homosexuaity and anal sex between males is not unnatural, any ethical position that relies on that notion cannot be called reasonable or 'relatively reasonable'.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Ultimately the overall "faith based" argument is not accessible to reasoned argument.

BUT that does not mean that the individual elements used to support a faith based argument cannot be individually rebutted/falsified - or supported and accepted. R Dawkins makes that point often.

The error comes in the summation into the overall argument AND the inclusion of factors which are unfalsifiable faith based.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom