Ron Unz and JFK

or

Leaving the courtroom

My comment in the previous post, about Ron Unz’s credulity about conspiracy theories (CTs) of the assassination of John F. Kennedy has made me think, once again, about what we might call the pathology of extraordinary beliefs. As the sceptics of CTs have said, which not only includes JFK but also 9/11, this is a topic that, like religion and politics, should not be touched in after-dinner conversations. People feel very hurt and it is impossible to argue on good terms.

Let’s use the analogy of the lawyer and the prosecutor who bring the experts to court to try to convince the jury; say, the mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald staged by British television between Gerry Spence and Vincent Bugliosi. A good litmus test to know who has a closed mind is simply to point out who, when watching the TV show at home, leaves the room when the speaker is either Spence or Bugliosi.

The fact is that it is those who believe in the CT who usually leave the room, so to speak, in the sense that they never read sceptical books. Their attitude is as surreal as Alice’s Queen of Hearts in Wonderland: first comes to the sentence and then the trial. First we ‘know’ that 9/11 was an inside job, or, in the case of JFK, we ‘know’ that Oswald didn’t act alone. The long trial process that culminates in the sentence is of no importance or consequence for those who ‘know’ the truth.

Ron Unz is reputed to be a voracious devourer of books and articles. But when the issue of the trial between Spence and Bugliosi arrives, he leaves the courtroom every time the prosecutor speaks. Last year, in this discussion thread of his webzine, Unz said he had not read the thick Bugliosi treatise. When a supporter of Bugliosi pointed out that there was a much shorter book of another ‘prosecutor’ (pic above), a book that with the amazing capacity that Unz has could read it in one day, Unz did not respond.

That is the all too common attitude among those who believe in CTs. True Believers can read a dozen books promoting the conspiracy but not a single article from the other side (listen how Bugliosi explains this bizarre behaviour: here)! That is why they ignore the most basic arguments of the prosecutor. For example, in the most recent discussion thread about the 9/11 attacks, some visitors got mad at me but none advanced an argument about a video I linked about Building 7 (for the believers in the 9/11 CTs, Building 7 is considered one of their strongest arguments of what they call ‘controlled demolition’).

It is relatively easy to find out who’s the one who leaves the courthouse every time the opposing lawyer speaks. They are those who believe not only in the CT about JFK or 9/11, but in the so-called Fake Moon Landing, Satanic Ritual Abuse, or the existence of UFOs in Hangar 14 of the US government.

Let’s illustrate this with my case. I used to believe in the pseudoscience of parapsychology. I spent many years of my life wanting to prove the existence of ‘psi’ (extrasensory perception and psychokinesis). I didn’t read the sceptics of the paranormal because they were ‘the bad guys in the movie’.

When I finally spoke with them, at a November 1989 conference they invited me to, I was surprised that those I considered closed were, in fact, quite open people. They even subscribed to the main journals of parapsychology. That happened also with UFO sceptics. They were avid readers of their opponents’ literature: those who promote the hypothesis that UFOs are manned extraterrestrial ships. It is the believers of the extraterrestrial hypothesis who never read the literature of the sceptics.

Before, I only read literature from parapsychologists. But after meeting the ‘prosecutors’ in the early 1990s I became familiar, little by little, with their literature. A few years after subscribing to the Skeptical Inquirer there came a time when I felt agnostic (just as there are people who are no longer a hundred percent sure that God exists). Concurrently I realised that my parapsychological colleagues did not read sceptical literature, nor did they respond to the main arguments of the sceptics (Occam’s razor, the falsifiability principle, etc.).

Only until May 1995, thinking outside a subway station, there was a time when I seriously doubted, for the first time in life, the existence of psi (something similar to a priest doubting for the first time in his life of the existence of God). However, it would take me a few more years to understand why had I got caught in such a self-sealing belief system in the first place: an issue I address in my autobiographical books (see sidebar at the bottom of this page).

I mention this just so that it is understood that there are times that we are so absolutely convinced that pseudoscience is real science that we do not realise that it is a cathedral built on clay bases.

When I lived in Marin County I once had the opportunity to realise that the foundations of the ‘science’ I was studying were shaky. In a bookstore I saw that they sold A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology. Thirty-four years have passed since that night and I still remember the image of James Randi on the dustcover. But I thought I couldn’t afford it. If I had listened to the prosecutor, a dozen (lost) years of my life would have been spared! But I didn’t listen to him and embarked on a quixotic project of wanting to develop psi.

You can’t learn from another’s mistakes. I know that what I say here won’t make any dent whatsoever in the True Believers’ worldview who, like Unz, flee from the courtroom every time Bugliosi speaks. They do this to avoid the most elemental cognitive dissonance, as I did when I was trapped in my self-sealing system. But if I could travel to the past and see Cesar in that California bookstore in 1985, I would tell him, I would beg him, to buy the book he had in his young hands…

18 Comments

  1. I read jew Posner’s book Case Closed. Not convincing.

    Not sure why you are branching out into the CT/anti-CT field.

    • Well, at least you are not one of those who leave the room every time the prosecutor opens his mouth…

      P.S. Ron Unz, who argues on the opposite side of Posner, is also Jewish.

      • Jews on both sides of an argument.

  2. In a certain way, I do not care about the truth. The only truth is survival. If a delusion helps survival, it’s a good delusion.

    Too bad neither of these delusions are Darwinian. More so, they are Christian. Both delusional and anti-survival.

    Why would anyone care about who killed a random president of the JewSA? Because they suspect a “Cultural Marxist” takeover of their beloved JewSA. Next patient!

    Why would anyone care who bombed those weird Christian Two Towers in Jew York? Because so many good Amerikwan lives were lost. Next patient!

    Why would anyone care about how many Jewkrainians or Chinks or Irish subhumans died in the starvations? Because every life should be saved.

    I do not get the reason why you are attacking conspiracy theories. Aren’t they retarded no matter if they are true or not?

    Wouldn’t you yourself rather kill 99% if the remaining 1% were NatSoc? A rhetorical question.

    • It is important because, among racially conscious whites, conspiracy theories drive enormous amounts of energy away from the path of revolution. If you have not read it, I recommend ‘Dark Night of the Soul’, my penultimate essay in The Fair Race, where I explain how the Moon sucked the energy of James Mason and others, trapped in a mental system (I use the same metaphor and image in my latest autobiographical book as I confess my own dark night).

      And by the way, use another penname. You seem to be in America. But a guy from Ukraine that used to comment here also signed his posts under the penname of ‘Adunai’.

    • @adunaii, by your admission to the rejection about truth having matter, you already have surrendered the real war and have capitulated towards complacency in wishing to build a Castle on the foundation of sand. There’s already enough delusion everywhere in society. We don’t need more of it…

  3. You are sliding nonconforming ideas on killing of JFK and 9/11 towers into belief in UFOs and paranormal. This is a mistake.

    • Not a mistake.

      In fact, those sceptics of the paranormal I talk about above were also present in the 1994 sceptical conference on pseudosciences in Seattle where one of the topics was JFK conspiracy theories. IIRC, I still have the audiocassettes in my archives of that JFK conference that I attended, and actually spoke with the speakers after their JFK address.

      It is not a mistake as their methodology is exactly the same they use in the paranormal: Never read the literature (or listen the audiocassettes) from the other side. Always leave the room as soon as your opponent opens his filthy mouth!

      The fact that Ron Unz also behaves like the Queen of Hearts demonstrates my point.

      • I do read both sides of any controversial topic and have been known to either change my mind (on something where I was already convinced) OR not be convinced either way. About JFK, it would not be the first time the government has lied to us if they indeed have.

        My bigger question to anti-conspiracy theorists is: Why are you so quick to believe your government’s version on these kinds of matters? Why do you consider the govt trustworthy? This doesn’t mean the govt is always lying, but neither are they always telling the truth, either.

        How about, “Both explanations sound good, but I really just don’t know for sure.”

      • My bigger question to anti-conspiracy theorists is: Why are you so quick to believe your government’s version…

        1. I am not an American. Therefore, it is not ‘my government’.

        2.- I don’t believe the US government’s version (haven’t read their Warren Commission report). But what those researchers on JFK said in Seattle was very logical.

  4. If it’s not too much trouble, may I ask what this is about JFK CT?

    I’ve been reading George Lincoln Rockwell’s White Power and he went over the topic. He seemed to think that Oswald at least had help from others. Rockwell seemed to imply that Oswald trained in the Soviet Union, had help from Mrs Paine, and was in contact with Cuban communists. He seemed to think Oswald was part of an international Jewish Communist plot to basically assassinate the President and usher in a Soviet America.

    The JFK assassination happened long before my time and, since I’m not an American, I don’t know much about it.

    Why is it such an important or contested topic? I mean, in relation to white nationalism.

    • Not only GLR but Revilo Oliver also believed that the Soviets could have been involved. I have no repulsion against such hypothesis, but after those early days (I still remember when a girl told me about the murder; we were in elementary school when I heard the bombshell) much more sinister theories emerged.

      Gregory Hood’s article on Counter-Currents proves that I am not the only one concerned about the more recent developments. Hood writes about the American Left’s chutzpa on the JFK assassination, in the sense that in the current anti-white System ‘you are allowed to say that everyone killed Kennedy except the person who actually killed him (a Communist)’. Remember, half-Jew Oliver Stone et al twisted the murder to fit their Leftist agenda.

      • If you don’t mind, let me see if I understood this correctly.

        So people still believe in the same nonsense that Jews started peddling immediately after the JFK assassination; that it was “anti-communist right-wing haters”, or just “hate”, that killed the President?

        And there are white nationalists who believe this?

        Why? And I must reiterate: how is this important to whites regaining power and retaking their countries?

      • Perhaps I didn’t explain myself clearly enough above. It is important for the reasons discussed in ‘Dark Night of the Soul’: mild forms of psychoses are detrimental to the cause.

  5. It’s not just the literature of their opponents that they overlook. Sometimes they don’t even read their own literature! We can usually gleam this from Christian circles, especially the ones who believe Hitler was a Christian. They go so far as to dismiss all memoirs and diaries as hoaxes while praising David Irving who relied extensively on these sources.

    I once met a Strasserite on a Germanic forum (which had an even number of pagans and Christians) who was almost an exact match for the “pagan” missionaries Hitler called out in MK (presumably for a Christian audience). He boasted of how long he had been missionizing, he was rabidly intent on provoking the Christians while deliberately blindsided to the Jewish question, he maintained in spite of all facts that Hitler owed all his success to Erik Jan Hanussen (which he had read from Kurlander), etc.

    But the worst part was when I dug into Otto Strasser’s memoirs to refute some of his points (for which I am grateful since Strasser has validated for me that Hitler was seeking to emulate the Spartans). He admitted that he had never once read Strasser’s memoirs! I also pointed out to him that Strasser had been a moralistic Christian so it was unusual for a “pagan” to laud him over someone like Rosenberg or Himmler.

    > Ron Unz is reputed to be a voracious devourer of books and articles.

    For which he seems to be praised by certain nationalist intellectuals. That is a mistake. I hold nothing against Unz at present, but high intelligence and good memory should not be considered merits.

    • Absolutely. I have suffered great disappointments with very smart men who have such terrible character flaws that eclipse their virtues.

  6. @C.T.

    My apologies for the misunderstanding. I meant what could white nationalist possibly gain from believing that JFK was assassinated by someone other than a jew communist? This is what I find perplexing.

    Also, there is no need to approve this comment. I just wished to clear the misunderstanding.

    • what could white nationalist possibly gain from believing that JFK was assassinated by someone other than [Oswald]?

      This is a very important question that would require a whole book to answer it.

      Simply put, WNsts are human beings like everyone else. They have taken the purple pill but not the red one.

      Taking the red one is traumatising (as in the movie, when the robot-spider pulls Neo out from the gelatinous cocoon). Purple keeps us more in a gelatinous comfort zone.

      Being purple humans, WNsts still have blue-pilled normie traits. One of the normies’ cognitive failures is what we could call ‘paleologic thinking ’ or ‘paleological modes of cognition’. This is a huge topic, but if you’ve read my Day of Wrath you’ll get an idea of what I’m talking about.

      Part of paleologic thinking in modern man consists of schizoid archaisms. For example, to believe that a historical murder, like that of JFK, must have a paramount cause, rather than an infinitely more prosaic one.

      If the WNsts realised that the narrative of Oliver Stone et al harms the 14 words it would be easier to try to argue with them. But few of those who believe in JFK’s CT have weighed upon what Hood says in the Counter-Currents article linked above.

      That would be a start for them to bring some rationality back to the issue. The next step would be to take a vacation to read Bugliosi’s book, or at least watch the Bugliosi video that I link in the article above after the term ‘bizarre behaviour’.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: