You are here

Dave Slesinger, Peter Kirstein on TJ Radio today

David Slesinger and Howard Zinn

First hour: David Slesinger of, organizer with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. David is planning an exciting civil disobedience action (on behalf of 911Courage, NOT AE911Truth – he wears two separate hats with the two groups). David is also a key player in the movement for justice for murdered 9/11 whistleblower Barry Jennings.

Second hour: Academic freedom fighter Peter Kirstein returns to Truth Jihad Radio! He will discuss the Loretta Capeheart case (Loretta was Friday’s guest) among other topics. In that case, administrators at Northeastern Illinois University (NEIU) are arguing in court that faculty have no free speech rights, whereas administrators have the right to slander anyone they choose with impunity.

Peter N. Kirstein is professor of history at St Xavier University in Chicago. He has an M.A. and Ph.D. degree from Saint Louis University and an A.B. from Boston University. His undergraduate mentor and advisor was Howard Zinn. He is also vice president of the Illinois Conference of the American Association of University Professors and chairs its Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure. In 2002 he was involved in one of the most controversial academic freedom cases of the new century. He was suspended and reprimanded for an antiwar email as a response to an event solicitation at the Air Force Academy. He later became known as a leading defender of Norman Finkelstein’s academic freedom.

An author of a book and many articles, Kirstein concentrates on the atomic bomb, foreign policy and academic freedom. Frequently they intersect. His recent involvement in the Namita Goswami tenure case at DePaul University has been covered by the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chronicle of higher Ed and Inside Higher Ed. Professor Kirstein was included in David Horowitz, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.

2 Thoughts to “Dave Slesinger, Peter Kirstein on TJ Radio today”

  1. I laughed at Slesinger’s idea that he should defer to American Indians because they are a more oppressed group than his own. Has he tried speaking out in defense of his own group’s interests the way so many normal Indians do? The Indian Normals find an attentive audience in the halls of govt. and in the mainstream academy and media. — Kevin MacDonald, David Duke, Jared Taylor … er, not so much. Slesinger has no choice but to defer to Indians and other non-Whites because to take his own people’s side in any conflict of interests with non-Whites is conventionally deemed racism.

    All of that assumes Slesinger is White. But if however he’s actually a member of that group out of south west Asia that designed the victimology hierarchy in the West and placed themselves atop it, he knows full well that other tribe members positioned at every critical point in the matrix won’t ever let Indian, Hispanic, Black or Muslim interests override his own people’s. And in that case his ‘Whites to the back of the bus’ message doesn’t look quite so altruistic or ‘anti-racist.’

  2. You previously mentioned that you might like to interview a prominent White Normal such as David Duke. I hope you’ll get around to that eventually. After Duke the second most ‘famous’ is probably Jared Taylor of American Renaissance — Taylor came to mind because he has a new book out that addresses some of your most frequent errors, e.g. in this and other recent shows you’ve made the comment that America is different from most other countries in not having an ethnic foundation (which is anti-historical nonsense). According to this review Taylor covers this matter:

    For the author, two centuries of coexistence between White racial consciousness and the Enlightenment ideals of the U.S. constitution rules out fundamental contradictions between them, and in quoting statements by the country’s founders he seeks to illustrate that they never intended to create a universal proposition nation, as Marxist revisionists and forgers pretend. Jared Taylor’s point is that they were racially conscious as Whites and that this consciousness was normal and natural up until fifty years ago.

    Yet, it is clear from their statements that the founders did not think their Enlightenment project was compatible with a racially heterogeneous society, for they generally advocated either segregation or shipping the Black labourers back to Africa. They were enlightened in that they knew humans are different and are best in free societies that reflect their innate temperament and abilities because they are governed by people who are similar.

    And it was not simply that the country’s founders thought genetically distant peoples could not be assimilated into a White European society, but also that their Enlightenment values were dangerous in the presence of Blacks, for, as some noted, Blacks did not internalise these values and only took advantage of the Whites who lived by them.

Leave a Comment