Fetzer supports Trump, gets fired from Barrett's show

[WilliamSeger]

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.

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

 

[JSanderO]

All true!

 

[Norman Alexander]

Who listens to either of them? Probably not even their moms.

 

[Pinch]

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.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

It's always sad when a comedy duo go their separate ways.

 

[Oystein]

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!

 

[JSanderO]

Looks like Fetzer has melanoma on his forehead... This is hysterical...Fundamentalism meets narcissistic moron.

 

[rockinkt]

Who listens to either of them? Probably not even their moms.

This.

 

[Georgio]

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!

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:

- ...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.

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.

 

[jaydeehess]

When Jim Fetzer is the voice of reason in a discussion you gotta know things be ###### up.

 

[Oystein]

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.

 

[Georgio]

Actually, I thought that the position on homosexuality that Barrett explains there is relatively reasonable.

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.

 

[Oystein]

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:

Hence "relatively".

 

[Childlike Empress]

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.

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.

 

[Oystein]

Barrett has lived in a Bus under a bridge in San Fransisco for a while, he has no time for bigotry.

I think it's a mistake to turn a blind eye to the bigotry of the precarious

 

[Childlike Empress]

I think it's a mistake to turn a blind eye to the bigotry of the precarious

I can't make sense of that sentence. 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?

 

[Nick Terry]

I can't make sense of that sentence. 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?

No clarity in German Wiki as to why the word changed its meaning in German, but not in French or English.

 

[Oystein]

I can't make sense of that sentence.

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.

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?

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".

 

[Nick Terry]

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.

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.

 

[ozeco41]

IIRC in English Common Law sodomy included both buggery and bestiality. With buggery in turn including oral or anal penetration by the penis.

No guarantee on those historic definitions - and no prize for the first to prove me wrong.