Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media and Holocaust Denial

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vortex said:
In fact, nowadays we are seeing a well-deserved positive reappraisal of "conspiracy theories" as such - it is dawning on many folks (academicians included) that members of Western elites do, in fact, conspire. For example, see this book by a prestigious university publisher, written by a respected political scientist, which defends conspiracy theories: Lance Dehaven-Smith's "Conspiracy Theory in America", published by University of Texas Press.

The ideological dogma of Reactionary Authoritarian Center-Left - the degenerate version of cruelly crushed and cynically appropriated Progressive Libertarian Radical Left of 1960s - 70s (which I highly respect, and from which I took many of my ideals and principles) - is crumbling before our very eyes, and it is wonderful! Great changes are ahead.
Click to expand...
That all sound noble. You'll have to pardon me if I question the application of what you are espousing after spending several days in the Sandy Hook thread where some questionable sources were being named "authoritative" and there was a complete discount/denial of one of our own member's direct experience.

There is a weird willingness around here that almost borders on a presumptive validity of all things conspiracy.
 
Vortex said:
In fact, nowadays we are seeing a well-deserved positive reappraisal of "conspiracy theories" as such - it is dawning on many folks (academicians included) that members of Western elites do, in fact, conspire. For example, see this book by a prestigious university publisher, written by a respected political scientist, which defends conspiracy theories: Lance Dehaven-Smith's "Conspiracy Theory in America", published by University of Texas Press.
Click to expand...

The book doesn't seem to be about Holocaust denial.

Exactly which conspiracy theories is he defending in the text?
 
Vortex said:
...it is dawning on many folks (academicians included) that members of Western elites do
Click to expand...

I credit the free flow of information on the Internet for this.

It is a technology as disruptive as electricity, internal combustion engines, and the Gutenberg press.

I'm old enough to remember being laughed at for saying the National Security Agency existed. My best friend worked there in 1988. Everyone I told about it said I was crazy because it would be impossible for such a thing to exist without the Media reporting on it.
 
Charlie Primero said:
I credit the free flow of information on the Internet for this.

It is a technology as disruptive as electricity, internal combustion engines, and the Gutenberg press.

I'm old enough to remember being laughed at for saying the National Security Agency existed. My best friend worked there in 1988. Everyone I told about it said I was crazy because it would be impossible for such a thing to exist without the Media reporting on it.
Click to expand...

I thought the NSA was made public post Watergate, before 1980 even?
 
Sciborg_S_Patel said:
I thought the NSA was made public post Watergate, before 1980 even?
Click to expand...

Technically it was, but 99% of people would call you a conspiracy kook for asserting that the NSA existed back then.

That’s my point. Many things we consider common knowledge today were largely unknown before the Internet facilitated the free-flow the information.

I consider this disruptive technology a good thing.
 
Sciborg_S_Patel said:
The book doesn't seem to be about Holocaust denial.

Exactly which conspiracy theories is he defending in the text?
Click to expand...

Lance Dehaven-Smith concentrates on nefarious deeds of the Deep State - the covert part of state-running elites' activities which exist outside of and public control and monitoring. Its acts include both institutionally accepted events, such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, COINTELPRO and MK-Ultra, and the ones which are evidentially proven to be state actors' covert activities yet are furiously officially denied, such as JFK assassination and 9-11 false flag attack. He uses the novel expression "State Crime Against Democracy (SCAD)" to avoid negative connotations of "conspiracy theory" label.

Interestingly, Sonoma State University (the one that employs Dean Radin, BTW...) conducts a "Sociology of Conspiracies" educational course, lead by its sociology professor Peter Phillps, which seems to be inspired by Dehaven-Smith's work and his SCAD concept. It slighly renames his notion as "State Crime Against Society (SCAS)" - which, I think, is a better designation since it is applicable to anarchists as well as democrats...
 
Last edited:
Vortex said:
Lance Dehaven-Smith concentrates on nefarious deeds of the Deep State - the covert part of state-running elites' activities which exist outside of and public control and monitoring. Its acts include both institutionally accepted events, such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, COINTELPRO and MK-Ultra, and the ones which are evidentially proven to be state actors' covert activities yet are furiously officially denied, such as JFK assassination and 9-11 false flag attack. He uses the novel expression "State Crime Against Democracy (SCAD)" to avoid negative connotations of "conspiracy theory" label.

Interestingly, Sonoma State University (the one that employs Dean Radin, BTW...) conducts a "Sociology of Conspiracies" educational course, lead by its sociology professor Peter Phillps, which seems to be inspired by Dehaven-Smith's work and his SCAD concept. It slighly renames his notion as "State Crime Against Society (SCAS)" - which, I think, is a better designation since it is applicable to anarchists as well as democrats...
Click to expand...

Thanks - so nothing about the Holocaust being a hoax then. Has he ever debated a historian who disagreed with him?

I'm curious if there's an equivalent to peer review for history departments in academia? Proving certain conspiracy theories correct hardly confirms all the other ones after all.
 
Roberta said:
Ah right gotcha.
Click to expand...

Roberta, I have a question for you: while some (not all) Leftists associate "conspiracy theories" with Rightists, I often noticed support of "conspiracy theories" from the Left as well as from the Right.

Take, for example, Green Party's own presidental candidate, Jill Stein - she published a criticism of the official version of 9/11 attacks on her presidental campaign website, demanding a new investigation and, consequently, effectively supporting 9/11 Truth Movement.

What do you think about Jill's "conspiratorial" position on 9/11 events? Do you agree with her here? If yes, why yes, and if not, why not?
 
Charlie Primero said:
As I always say, crying "wolf" and exaggerating things ultimately harm you. It's a bad idea. The Jewish Telegraph Agency agrees...

"It is, however, a number without any scholarly basis."

http://www.jta.org/2017/01/31/news-...lated-victims-tally-irks-holocaust-historians
Click to expand...

So what's your point? If you could be proved right and "only" 2, 3 or 4 million jews were killed I guess you'd be pretty pleased. You could feel well satisfied with how clever you are. You still would kinda look like a dick though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top