• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Was Jonathan Kay bought off by a Neo-Con Think Tank?

Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
20,632
Location
Ivory Tower
Here's a little conspiracy theory i've just developed.

In May 2011, Jonathan Kay's book Among the Truthers was published. Kay is a relatively young canadian journalist. It's a book taking a sociological and psycho-pathological look at "conspiricists" as he calls them, tying it all together with roots in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", exemplating the perceived phenomenon by chapters about some well-known figures in the "Truth Movement" like David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Mike Ruppert and Kevin Barrett. The regulars know the story. He has an explanation for every one of them "falling" for the theories. Griffin is a "crank", Gage has a "midlife crisis", Ruppert is "insane" and Barrett is a raving anti-semitic lunatic.

Barrett has a radio show where Kay was a guest two months after the book was published - i've posted it some time ago and again recently after forum member fourtoe requested the link after i've mentioned it in passing. Today he posted it to his thread on 9/11 audio debates after he came around to listen to it.

Direct link to the audio of the July 2011 discussion is here. It suffers from some Skype problems but all in all is interesting and reasonably respectful, especially from Barrett's side given how he was prominently portrait in the book. Details on how he thinks he was quoted out of context and slandered are here.

The latter link I found because I've listened to the beginning of the debate again today, after fourtoe posted the link in his thread. Barrett mentioned that Kay was on his show the second time, so I went to look-up that first show, done while Kay was writing his book.

Here is the link to their first debate from June 2009. In this audio, the book is scheduled to come out in 2010, so there was a significant delay. And the context, well, they had a very good discussion and sound both reasonable, especially Barrett who doesn't shy away from answering question about alternative narratives etc. They touch on the Neo-Cons quite a bit. And Kay doesn't sound like he's about to write a hitpiece slandering Barrett as a wild-eyed Antisemit.

But that's what happened, and frankly I wouldn't be able to come up with an explanation for it if it weren't for the fact that I know from discussions after the release of his book that Kay is a "fellow" in a Neo-Con related Think-Tank called Foundation for the Defense of Democracies which is sometimes described as PNAC reloaded.

So, did someone use the eMail-Adress Kay offered at the end of the first interview in June 2009 and made him an offer that lead to the 2011 interview where Barrett tries to explain why he's not a Jew-hating Idiot? To write his book in a certain way?

Well, I don't know when he joined the group but Kay's publication list on the FDD website starts on September 15th, 2009.
 
What would be the motive of this 'Neo-Con Think Tank' in paying him off to write slander about Barett? Why would do you think they would pay someone to change their initial story and write something different when they could just write it themselves?
 
You have it backwards. You have to come up with a better explanation than I have in explaining the development from the 2009 interview to the book to the 2011 interview.
 
You have it backwards. You have to come up with a better explanation than I have in explaining the development from the 2009 interview to the book to the 2011 interview.

Pretty much any explanation is better that thinking he was "bought off" for some reason....

Barrett does not need anyone's help in looking like an extreme idiot....he does that all by himself.

The truth movement does not need any help either....it is not relevant and never will be. That movement killed itself long before it even had a chance at survival.

So neither Barrett or the truth movement needs any help looking foolish to the average person that stops ignoring them long enough to take a look.....they have accomplished that task quite well on their own.
 
You have it backwards. You have to come up with a better explanation than I have in explaining the development from the 2009 interview to the book to the 2011 interview.
I haven't listened to the 2009 interview yet but isn't the better explanation that Barrett is an antisemitic idiot?
 
Last edited:
I haven't listened to the 2009 interview yet but isn't the better explanation that Barrett is an antisemitic idiot?


If that's the impression you got from listening to the 2011 interview then you have no tools available to make any reasonable statements about the world surrounding you. But most likely you are just a little bit afraid of the results of your actions.
 
I'd suggest you make yourself familiar with the evidence before you run off your mouth.

Good idea......

Now that I am familiar with the evidence let me modify my original statement...


Pretty much any explanation is better that thinking he was "bought off" for some reason....

Barrett does not need anyone's help in looking like an extreme idiot....he does that all by himself.

The truth movement does not need any help either....it is not relevant and never will be. That movement killed itself long before it even had a chance at survival.

So neither Barrett or the truth movement needs any help looking foolish to the average person that stops ignoring them long enough to take a look.....they have accomplished that task quite well on their own.
 
Ohhh, a whole thread devoted to an ad hominem fallacy!

This is definitely going to crack the case CE!
 
... Barrett who doesn't shy away from answering question about alternative narratives etc. ...
Interesting. What was the gist of his answers? Oerhaps anything on who dunnit?


If that's the impression you got from listening to the 2011 interview then you have no tools available to make any reasonable statements about the world surrounding you. But most likely you are just a little bit afraid of the results of your actions.
Did Kay use exclusively the 2009 and 2011 interviews as evidence to support his characterization of Barnett? Or is the fact that both were civil an Barnett didn't curse any Jews sufficient proof that Barnett never was an anti-semite, or Kay never actually thought so?


I suggest perhaps there are clue in Kay's book. I haven't read it, and I am not going to listen to the audio. Just Asking Questions.


Oh and of course, if you think Kay was "bought off" ,do you mean literally, as in money, goods and services going towards Kay? Then I's ask for a little sumpin' called "evidence".
 
You have it backwards.

No no no, it is you who has it backwards. You see, before you begin talking about people getting paid off to cover up a conspiracy (not exactly the topic but I can see this is where it stems from) you must first prove there is a conspiracy. No one has yet proven there was, therefore it is pointless to start speculating who was paid off for what.
 
But that's what happened, and frankly I wouldn't be able to come up with an explanation for it if it weren't for the fact that I know from discussions after the release of his book that Kay is a "fellow" in a Neo-Con related Think-Tank called Foundation for the Defense of Democracies which is sometimes described as PNAC reloaded.

So, did someone use the eMail-Adress Kay offered at the end of the first interview in June 2009 and made him an offer that lead to the 2011 interview where Barrett tries to explain why he's not a Jew-hating Idiot? To write his book in a certain way?

If I understand correctly, you're saying that Kay was reasonably respectful in both interviews. So you haven't actually presented any evidence of a change. It isn't at all uncommon for people to be respectful in person and very critical in writing -- although you also haven't presented any evidence of what Kay says about Barrett in writing.

I thought the last part was kind of funny. Did someone use Kay's email address to make him an offer? Probably not.

I haven't read Kay's book, and I'm not likely to. I don't think what he has to say about Kevin Barrett -- whatever it is -- is or could be nearly influential enough to be worth buying him off. On the contrary, both before and after Kay's book, very few people have heard of Kevin Barrett. TPTB have no apparent motive for seeking to raise Barrett from obscurity, even to calumnify him.

Conspiracy theories with so little basis in stated evidence and in motive are the sort of conspiracy theories that give conspiracy theories a bad name. For all I know, that may be your point.
 
You have it backwards. You have to come up with a better explanation than I have in explaining the development from the 2009 interview to the book to the 2011 interview.

The burden of proof is on you, the claimant. You claim Kay was bought off. Prove it.
 
If I understand correctly, you're saying that Kay was reasonably respectful in both interviews. So you haven't actually presented any evidence of a change. It isn't at all uncommon for people to be respectful in person and very critical in writing -- although you also haven't presented any evidence of what Kay says about Barrett in writing.
I was also thinking this, there are plenty examples! Remember a poster named pomeroo, CE? His posts on JREF were quite different from how he acted on Hardfire.

I think another example is this debate between Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton. Both have been rather dickish and critical of one another in other mediums but were civil and respectful during the debate.

What's more likely? Two people don't want to come off as angry passive aggressive pricks when doing a radio interview? Or that there is some conspiracy bribing someone to libel a Holocaust denier who no one other than us and other CTist have heard of?
 
What's more likely? Two people don't want to come off as angry passive aggressive pricks when doing a radio interview? Or that there is some conspiracy bribing someone to libel a Holocaust denier who no one other than us and other CTist have heard of?


Kevin Barrett isn't a holocaust denier, like you would know if you would have payed attention to what you were listening to. You would also know that Kay makes claims about Barrett in his book that he knows are not true from their first conversation. For example on the topic of Philip Zelikow. This is not about politeness, your example about Ron "Buckley Jr Jr" Wieck doesn't fit.
 
I like how CE just starts right in on the snide insults the second he's contradicted.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom