Friday, October 30, 2009
According to Gilad Atzmon, "The Israeli Philosophy professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz was probably the first to define the holocaust as the ‘new Jewish religion'."
But as the persecution of Bishop Williamson makes clear, Holocaustism has replaced Christianity as well as Judaism.
You can tell which story is sacred and which one isn't by the reaction you get when you commit sacrilege. Nowhere in the West is anyone being brought up on charges of denying the crucifixion-resurrection. People can blithely doubt the crucifixion and the resurrection and the virgin birth and the trinity other tenets of Christianity and still work in the great universities of the West. In fact, if they don't doubt these things, they might have a harder time getting hired. Admit at a faculty luncheon that you don't doubt the resurrection or the virgin birth, and you'll get some very strange looks.
But admit that you doubt any aspect of the sacred Holocaust narrative--six million Jewish victims, most killed in gas chambers, as part of a pre-conceived effort to eliminate Jewry from the face of the earth--and you'll never work in this town again. Thus we are treated to the spectacle of a Catholic bishop being tried by a new Inquisition for a heresy that has nothing to do with Catholicism.
My wise old kabbalah professor, Jacob Needleman, once pointed out that the Holocaust caused a great many Jews to lose their faith in God. How could a good God let this happen? Abandoning God, these Jews joined the atheist Zionists who were colonizing Palestine. They began worshipping the state of Israel, and its power, instead of God, the true source of all power. So it's easy to understand why Holocaustism, the sacred foundation of secular Zionism, became the majority religion of today's ethnic Jews.
But why has Holocaustism replaced Chrisitianity? I suppose it is because Christianity has been in slow decline for several centuries. By the 19th century, neither the thinking nor the ruling classes really believed in God any more. (A.N. Wilson, God's Funeral.) The reaction against Christianity in post-Christian Europe reached the point that by the post-World War II period, a residual Christian guilt complex met growing Jewish-Holocaustist power in the media...and the result was Holocaustism replacing Christianity as the core sacred narrative of the West.
Islam vs. Holocaustism
Islam, the world's fastest-growing religion, is immune to Holocaustism for two reasons. First, Muslims understand and oppose the Holocaustist atrocities in Palestine. "By their fruits ye shall know them," said Jesus, peace upon him...and the fruits of Holocaustist Zionism -- millions of people ethnic-cleansed, children shot for sport with impunity, white phosphorus dropped on the world's most densely-populated space, and on and on -- are as visibly evil to Muslims as they are invisibly evil to Westerners.
Second, Islam is built around the core teaching of tawhid: the absolute, eternal oneness of God as the only appropriate object of worship. The worst possible sin, from an Islamic perspective, is worshipping something other than God. So Muslims are not easily drawn into worshipping alleged sons of God, crucifixions, trinities, chosen peoples, or even holocausts.
Since Muslims stubbornly persist in worshipping God rather than the Holocaust, the 9/11 false-flag attack was orchestrated in order to launch a Holocaustist crusade against Islam. Just as the sacred story of the Holocaust was used to brainwash Jews into believing they had been victimized and thus had the right to become vengeful victimizers, the sacred official story of 9/11 was used to brainwash Americans and Westerners into believing that they too had been victimized, and that thus they too must become vengeful victimizers. In both cases the target of vengeance was Arabs and Muslims -- though why Holocaustists would take vengeance against Germans by mass-murdering and ethnic-cleansing Arabs and Muslims has never been explained. Le coeur noir a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
The Future of an Illusion
The 9/11 truth movement has already succeeded in desacralizing the official myth of 9/11. The question of what really happened and why on 9/11 has become a legitimate topic of debate. As time goes on, it will grow more and more difficult for the high priests of the official myth to do to other skeptics what was done to me, Steven Jones, and Kevin Ryan.
Meanwhile, the world's Muslims will persist in worshipping God alone and refusing to kowtow to Holocaustism. They will continue to view the Jewish holocaust, small h, as just one of a great many holocausts and genocides, some of which continue today in places like Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They will continue to insist that the Jewish holocaust, like all other holocausts and genocides, be the subject of free and fearless historical debate in which all viewpoints are welcome, and issues decided on the basis of reason and evidence, not emotion or intimidation or fines and jail sentences. And they will continue to insist that Palestine be returned to its rightful owners.
When the dust settles, insha'allah, I think more and more Westerners will come to realize that the Muslims were right all along -- not only about history and politics, but more importantly, about God.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Gilad Atzmon, living proof that pen and saxaphone are mightier than the white phosphorous sword, will join me on the radio Tuesday, November 10th. Meanwhile, two of my other favorite "proper Zionist Jews," Richard Falk and Philip Weiss, will join me this Saturday 10/31 and next Tuesday 11/3 respectively. (Check out Weiss introducing Falk's recent essay on why "Goldstone is a historic blow in the war Israel is losing - the 'Legitimacy War.'")
Judaism's great ethical tradition, which teaches us to question everything (even 9/11 and Zionism!), is slightly the worse for wear these days, but it proudly lives on in Gilad Atzmon, Richard Falk, and Philip Weiss. (Not to mention Anna Baltzer, new star of the Daily Show, who I hope to have back on my show soon!)
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Me, I'm a big picture guy. I want to know WHY they did this. And by "this" I mean the whole shebang -- not just blowing up the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon, but all of the shifts in geopolitical and economic policy that were set in place even before 9/11 was staged as a pretext.
David Ray Griffin, the unofficial dean of 9/11 studies, blames a hawkish element in the US national security establishment. That is obviously correct as far as it goes. The problem is, how exactly did US "national security" benefit from 9/11 and the 9/11 wars? On the surface, 9/11 and its wars seem to have weakened the US geopolitically, not strengthened it. Instead of the low oil prices and balanced budgets and happily democratic, pro-US, pro-Israel Middle East we were promised, we have high oil prices, an angry, less-democratic less-pro-US Middle East, and most importantly a catastrophic fiscal situation that has produced the worst economy since the Great Depression. What does any of this have to do with "national security"?
Explanation A: Nothing. But it has everything to do with Israeli security. The point of 9/11, in this view, was to trigger a long-term US war against the whole Islamic world on behalf of Israel. As 9/11 Commission coverup-commissar Philip Zelikow said, "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel...And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell." In this view, 9/11 was a coup d'etat by the hardline Zionists in and around PNAC, designed to trick the US into perpetually smashing Israel's Arab and Muslim enemies.
The implications of Explanation A -- that the Israeli tail is wagging the American dog to death -- are rather astounding. How could the Zionists have convinced people like Rumsfeld and Cheney and Richard Myers to commit treason on such a grand scale?
Enter Explanation B: The Oil Card. As James R. Norman writes in his book of that name, the 9/11 wars may actually be directed against China. By driving up the price of oil and wrecking the global economy (including the US economy) the US National Security State is shooting itself in the foot, but simultaneously shooting China in the heart. China is far more dependent on imported oil than the US is, so by taking Iraqi oil off-line, and throwing much of the Islamic oil-producing world into chaos, along with other measures, the NATSSIs (National Security State Idiots) have jacked up oil prices to the point that, they calculate, China will be unable to sustain its breakneck pace of economic growth, and will fail to emerge as a geopolitical challenger to US hegemony. (It's actually a bit more complicated than that -- for the details, read Norman's book.)
Norman's analysis is supported by George Friedman's very useful introduction to geopolitics, The Next 100 Years. Friedman persuasively argues that national elites rationally pursue their predictable interests within predictable constraints, making history, including future history, understandable. If this is true, the US national elites who staged 9/11 and its pre-scripted wars cannot have done so for any of the reasons they gave us. Whether the real reason was Explanation A, Explanation B, or both of the above, it was an act of the foulest treason against the American people and the people of the world.
Monday, October 26, 2009
On Oct 26, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Dr. Robert Moynihan of Inside the Vatican wrote this:
"Though 82, Benedict XVI is moving on all fronts: Lefebvrists, Anglicans, the Orthodox, Jews... He is trying to reunite all those factions and denominations and groups in the West that share common beliefs in the eternal destiny of human beings, in the sacredness of human life (since human beings are "in the image and likeness of God"), in the existence of a moral standard which is true at all times and in all places (against the relativism of the modern secular culture), in the need for justice in human affairs, for the rule of right, not might."
My response: "As one of a growing number of Western Muslims who share all of these 'common beliefs' (except that God has an image -- us -- which is a rather anthropomorphic and narcissistic idea) it seems to me that Benedict XVI is not quite moving on ALL fronts. Why are Muslims left out? ...If you (or the Pope for that matter) would be willing to discuss this on one of my radio programs let me know."
I'm still waiting for Moynihan and/or the Pope to get back to me. So in the meantime I decided to address an open letter directly to Benedict XVI, bypassing the middleman.
Dear Pope Benedict XVI,
I am curious about why your recent efforts toward inclusivity and dialogue have ignored Western Muslims like me.
The West (North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand) includes more than 50 million Muslims and fewer than 10 million Jews. So why are Jews on this list of Westerners you're trying to reach out to and include, while Muslims are not? It certainly isn't because Jews are more religious, and less prone to secular relativist worldviews, than Muslims!
Your Holiness, if I didn't know you were Infallible, I would suspect you of Islamophobia. (See quotes from your Regensburg lecture below.)
Below is the opening of an article of mine that will soon be published in a book entitled: Reasonable Religion: Atheists and Theists Discuss Religion, to be published by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, through its Lexington Books imprint. You may also be interested in a book I edited entitled 9/11 and the American Empire v.2: Christians, Jews and Muslims Speak Out. I would be happy to send you personally autographed papal copies of these books for your Vatican Library if you so desire.
Meanwhile, if you are ever in the mood for a little friendly interfaith dialogue, I would be honored to have you as a guest on one of my radio shows.
Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to hearing from you.
PS 9/11 was an inside job!
* * *
Is Islam Reasonable? In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture in Regensburg, entitled "Faith, Reason and the University — Memories and Reflections", in which he contrasted a Christian view that "not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature" with an Islamic view, as interpreted by Catholic theologian Adel-Theodore Khoury, that God transcends rationality as well as everything else. The papal speech drew criticism from Muslims and others not only for its apparent attempt to equate Islam with unreason, but especially because it quoted without disapproval the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The Regensburg lecture predictably incited anger among Muslims and joy among Islamophobes. James Schall, the Catholic political scientist who sees the U.S. invasion of Iraq as part of a much-needed war on Islam, wrote a book extolling the speech.
The controversial passages of the Pope's speech exemplify a common Western discourse portraying Islam as a religion of violent fanaticism and Muslims as essentially unreasonable people. Thus we are led to ask, is Islam reasonable? Is there any sense in which Islam as a religion, and Muslims as adherents of that religion, may be shown by rational argument based on empirical evidence to be any more or less reasonable than anyone else? Would a reasonable person who is neither Christian nor Muslim, neither Western nor Eastern, when confronted by the most salient differences between Islam and Christianity, conclude that Christianity is the way of reason, and Islam the way of unreason? . . .
- Kevin Barrett, "Is Islam Reasonable?" From Reasonable Religion: Atheists and Theists Discuss Religion, to be published by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, through its Lexington Books imprint. For the rest of the article, you'll have to buy the book.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Webster Tarpley, who appeared on both my radio shows last week, busts the myth of al-Qaeda on Russia Today: "Al-Qaeda is the CIA's Arab Legion."
Gilad Atzmon, who will join me on November 11th, busts the myth of the Jewish people and their "return" to Zion: SHLOMO SAND'S THE INVENTION OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE-BOOK REVIEW BY GILAD ATZMON.
And last but not least, Richard Gage got a mainstream paper to help bust the myth of the magically-crumbling World Trade Center skyscrapers: Imperium Watch: Flying Girders, Falling Towers Is the public ready to consider evidence that controlled demolition brought down the World Trade Center skyscrapers?
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Reports on Muhammad's court case:
Below is the email from the Southern California supporter of Muhammed.
Hi, Kevin! Funny you should mention Muhammed Abdullah. The local 9/11 Truth groups (WeAreChangeLA and Orange County 9/11 Truth) did publicize his trial, went to the courthouse to support him, and even organized an impromptu demonstration nearby. FYI, here is my comment after his 2nd court hearing, when he cross-examined complainants and agreed to seek a compromise with the city:
1. As I said after the hearing was over, what a shame that Muhammed did not have an attorney, or at least some close friend who would be knowledgeable enough to dissect the incriminating testimonies and coach him into cross-examining. The witnesses would have gone underground under questioning by even an amateurish lawyer, and the city attorney would have backtracked as fast as he could. Once again, a court illustrated that money makes a lot of difference.
2. Indeed, the testimonies were, at best, very weak:
· The ladies related single, one-time incidents.
· Their feelings were subjective.
· Much of the fear had a sexual overtone, yet there was no mention of any practical action on Muhammed’s part that could be construed as sexual harassment (looking at breasts or crotch or high heel shoes, suggestive postures or gestures, etc.).
· The ladies were afraid enough to launch a legal action, but not enough to consult a psychotherapist; kindly note that public servants, unlike most of us, benefit from socialized or quasi-socialized medicine.
3. Had Muhammed known how to cross-examine, the 3rd lady may have declined to testify:
· He would have asked detailed questions to establish the weakness of their testimonies (see above). In fact, when the 2nd witness mentioned that she vividly remembered the dress or skirt she was wearing, he could have asked what else she was wearing, and then what sexually suggestive attitude he adopted if any.
· Since the witnesses had criminal expertise, they had undoubtedly some training on how to handle dangerous people. If they were afraid of Muhammed, how did they handle truly dangerous situations within the scope of their jobs?
· This would have allowed him to legitimately raise the question as to whether they believed he was making up his allegations regarding 9/11 –“Your honor, I’m trying to make sense out of the witness’ fear; maybe she thinks I am inventing what I claim.”
· He would have asked the ladies why they were not afraid enough to formulate their complaints right away.
· He would have asked why they supported a legal action for a one-time problem instead of having the police give him a formal complaint and an invitation to use more restraint. In fact, wouldn’t this have been an elementary action on the part of public servants bent on serving the public?
· He would have steered the debate away from the fact that he was speaking and into the fact that a small aspect of his speech bothered a few people on one occasion.
· This would have made it obvious that the City’s court action was a waste of public resources and that the solution was just a bit of dialog between the Police Department and Muhammed. The judge would have ended up wondering why the City did not initiate that dialog rather than waste his time.
4. The judge’s “compromise” is what the French would call the use of a hammer to kill a fly. The judge –as a good cross between a politician and an attorney, with a limited sense of ethics like most public officials –probably knows very well what he is doing: giving Muhammed enough help so he cannot argue on appeal that the judge was unfair to him, but not enough to make the case against him crumble; he is earning some points with his Masters while appearing as a defender of the right to free speech.
5. The judge took pride in his blissful ignorance, giving Muhammed his materials back under the pretext that they were irrelevant to the case rather than accepting a challenge to learn something.
Friday, October 23, 2009
In other stories...tomorrow's radio show features Muhammed Abdullah, the Muslim Marine vet truther raided by DHS in apparent reprisal for his doggedly persistent truth activism in Pomona, CA. This story has been wildly underplayed in the 9/11 truth movement--the guy lost his job for being a truther, prevailed in court against the Pomona Police Department, then got raided under blatantly false pretenses. Come on people, where's the outrage? Following Muhammed will be professor Anthony Hall discussing the recent flurry of "arrest Bush" activity in Canada, and lots of other good stuff.
On Monday, 1-2 pm Central, I'll be appearing on the Mark Maxon show on KTKK in Salt Lake City, "one of the last remaining independent radio stations." Mark recently interviewed Mossad-fabricated "reformed terrorist" and professional Islamophobe Walid Shoebat, the target of my recent parody "Walid Shoebat's Evil Twin." So I'll be lambasting Islamophobia in general and Shoebat in particular on Maxon's show.
Then on Tuesday my guest on Fair and Balanced will be Dr. Ian Douglas, Coordinator of the International initiative to prosecute U.S. genocide in Iraq.
By midweek KVMR of Nevada City, California will be posting the archive of my interview last week with Chamba Lane. Go here and click on the Wednesday, October 21st show. There were some great moments on this two-hour show.
Then on Hallowe'en I'll play host to an amazing pair of guests, John Cobb and Richard Falk, on Truth Jihad Radio. John and Richard are two of the greatest minds in their fields -- theology and international law, respectively. For academic reputation and intellectual firepower, these two guys back-to-back is as good as it gets.
Should be a great week!
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Israeli-linked "art student" story Jonathan Elinoff broke on my show last Saturday got picked up by Infowars. Congratulations, Jonathan! And thanks to Ed Rynearson of RadioDuJour and American Freedom Radio for helping break the story.
Another breaking story returns to Truth Jihad Radio this Saturday, as Muhammed Abdullah, the Marine vet 9/11 truther who was raided by DHS in apparent reprisal for his activism, will join me for a full hour to tell his harrowing story. Stay tuned to my radio schedule page for updates. Other upcoming guests include professor Anthony Hall of the University of Lethbridge; Dr. Ian Douglas, coordinator of the International Initiative to Prosecute US Genocide in Iraq; 9/11-truth-seeking Princeton University professor and UN human rights official Richard Falk, expert on the Goldstone Report; John Cobb, one of the world's leading Protestant theologians, who happens to be a 9/11 truth supporter; and William Blum, "the thinking man's Noam Chomsky," author of Killing Hope.
And speaking of important stories, Josh Blakeney follows up on Tuesday's radio show with William Pepper:
Pressure Mounts on Canadian Law Enforcement Official to Arrest George Bush for International Crimes and for Possible Involvement in the 9/11 Debacle!
By Josh Blakeney
Media Coordinator of Globalization Studies, University of Lethbridge
21 October, 2009
Saskatoon Canada. About 300 protesters gathered outside of Teachers' Credit Union Place in Saskatoon to make a public display of their refusal to welcome George W. Bush to Canada. Bush's luncheon address to a business audience in Saskatoon was one stop in his three city Canadian tour. While one branch of the protesters worked with police, another branch emphasized the responsibility of the police to arrest George Bush.
This second group has aligned itself with Lawyers Against War. As it did in the prelude to the former US president's speeches in Calgary and Toronto, LAW delivered evidence to the relevant law enforcement officials right up to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. LAW has documented the case that Bush is credibly accused war criminal who should be arrested in Canada and tried for international crimes as well as for violating the Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
At one point I, Josh Blakeney, who am here in Saskatoon covering the event for Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge, took the microphone on the dissenters podium to criticize one of the organizers who publicly thanked the police. I presented the case on behalf of those who believe that Canadian law enforcement officials are violating the rule of law, including the Nuremberg principles, for not arresting former US president for his role in authorizing aggressive war and torture. Following orders, it was decided at Nuremberg and the United Nations, is no excuse for violating international laws as Canadian law enforcement officials have consistently done in refusing to arrest George Bush's during his Canadian speaking engagements.
I also drew attention on and off the podium to the growing body of evidence that parts of the US government may have been involved in the controlled demolitions of the three World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001. A recent peer-reviewed article by University of Copenhagen Chemistry Professor Niels Harrit et. al. demonstrates conclusively that military grade nano-thermite was used in dropping the three towers. From the day one of the post-9/11 era the US government has stuck to its initial story that the three steel-frame towers collapsed because of the impact of two plane crashes.
I pointed out that the contested events of 9/11 form the basis of the US government's Global War on Terror which continues under the Obama regime but with a different name. Most of the the war crimes and crimes against humanity that LAW and other organizations have pressed against George Bush came about because of aggressive wars justified by an explanation of 9/11 that subsequent research and publication by Professor David Ray Griffin and others have shown to be implausible.
The US government alleged on day one that Osama bin Laden and nineteen Saudi hijackers with box cutters acted alone in creating the 9/11 debacle. This version of events would attribute the destruction to a massive failure of intelligence, air defense, immigration, and skyscrapper engineering for which no one has yet been fired for incompetence or malfeasance.
In my short talk at the dissenter's podium in Saskatoon I called attention to the importance of the upcoming trial next March of Splitting the Sky, a prominent activist in the movement seeking 9/11 truth. The well-known Mohawk activist, who is also known as John Boncore, was arrested in Calgary last March attempting to conduct a citizens' arrest of George Bush.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
William Pepper Explains Why 9/11 Ballot Initiative Fight Ended, Suggests Loose Timetable for Bush-Cheney War Crimes Prosecution
William Pepper, legal advisor to the New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative, today explained why the initiative's board has decided not to pursue the case any further. Appearing on the "Fair and Balanced with Kevin Barrett" radio show (archived here) Pepper said the odds of winning an appeal were too slim to justify the resources such an appeal would consume. Instead, he said, the NYCcan.org legal team is hoping to file a civil suit by 9/11 family members and others in a legal venue carefully selected to maximize the chances of success.
Pepper also confirmed the rumor that a professor who is an expert on election law, when asked to help NYCcan.org, asked Pepper to promise him that the results of a genuine 9/11 investigation would not hurt Israel. Pepper naturally said he could not promise what might come of an investigation. Contrary to my earlier erroneous report, the professor did NOT refuse to help NYCcan.org. A thank-you to Ted Walter for correcting this.
Along with his work for a real 9/11 investigation, Pepper is an advisor to Spanish Judge Garzon, who is moving forward on the impending prosecutions of dozens of U.S. war criminals including former president George W. Bush and former vice president Dick Cheney. Pepper drew up the legal brief that judge Garzon will use to show that his court has jurisdiction over the case. That brief argues that not only are war crimes and crimes against humanity "borderless crimes" that can be prosecuted anywhere, but even more pertinently, Spanish citizens were subjected to illegal detention and torture by the war criminals, so Spain unquestionably has jurisdiction in this case. Pepper stated that judge Garzon is surrounded 24/7 by a team of bodyguards, and that the war criminals could be charged by as early as December. When such charges are issued, interpol will put out arrest warrants, which will hinder or prevent international travel by Bush, Cheney, and their fellow pariahs.
While Pepper laid out the case, Bush was arriving in Edmonton, where his speech Tuesday, and his speech in Saskatoon Wednesday, have mobilized Canadians who are calling for his immediate arrest. Joshua Blakeney, one of those Canadian anti-war-crimes activists, joined Pepper and Barrett on the show and discussed plans for giving Bush a "hot welcome" in Saskatoon. Barrett urged students at the University of Saskatoon to use their free tickets to the Bush event to take the opportunity to hurl their shoes at the former War-Criminal-in-Chief.
Let's face it: the US/NATO war in Afghanistan is doomed. Read your history: Foreign invaders and occupiers are not welcome in Afghanistan, "the graveyard of empires."
The whole thing was so predictable, one has to ask: Why are we doing this? What was the point of launching an illegal war against Afghanistan that was guaranteed to fail?
Some say it was about CIA control of Afghan heroin. Others say it was about a gas pipeline. Still others claim that Afghanistan is the center of the geopolitical "grand chessboard."
But none of this makes much sense given the obvious futility of the war effort from day one. Sure, the CIA has restored and escalated the Afghan heroin trade...but for how long? The Taliban will be taking full control soon, and they may just shut it down again. As for the pipeline project, it has fared much worse than the opium crop. And by launching a reckless, criminal war, we have ensured that, barring unforseen developments, the center of the grand chessboard will be viscerally anti-American for at least a century.
The propaganda about "fighting terror," of course, is so asinine I won't insult your intelligence by imagining that you could be stupid enough to believe it. Since the FBI admits there is no evidence implicating Bin Laden in 9/11, and since in September-October 2001 the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden if the US provided evidence against him, the whole "fighting terror" myth is ludicrous. Besides, launching criminal wars against Muslim countries would be the stupidest possible response to any genuine terrorist threat. For every angry Muslim looking for a chance to harm the US in 2001, there are many thousands today.
The truth is, 9/11 was designed to turn Americans and Muslims against each other, and bog them down in an endless war that would badly damage both groups. Who benefits from this war of civilizations? Hardline Zionists? British New World Order financiers? Shortsighted profiteers from the US military-industrial complex? The answer is "all of the above."
So how can patriotic Americans fight back against the real authors of 9/11? Simple. Expose the 9/11 hoax, recognize that we along with the world's 1.5 billion Muslims were victimized, and join with the world's Muslims in an alliance against the 9/11 perps. We should arrest and imprison the NWO financiers and Zionist unregistered agents who have been running amok in our country. We should bring back anti-trust laws and bust up the Zionist-controlled media. We should seize the financiers' ill-gotten assets, nationalize the Fed, and set up a transparent and non-usurious currency system. And while we are doing all this we should apologize to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, end the Zionist settler colonial project in Palestine through boycott-divestment-and-sanctions (followed by a full-scale embargo if necessary), and recognize the Afghan patriots fighting the criminal occupation of their country as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. That's why American patriots, as opposed to Zionist/NWO agents, should support the Taliban. (We should support the Islamic Republic of Iran as well, but that's the topic of another essay.)
These moves would restore the US-Muslim alliance that 9/11 was designed to torpedo. By mending fences with the world's leading oil producers, we would be inaugurating a real "new American century" of peace and prosperity.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
We now return to our regular programming:
Speaking of Blueprint for Truth...Richard Gage is planning a visit to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and possibly also the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, in February or March. If you could help with the event(s) please reply to this email.
Thanks, and hope to see you in Delavan!
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters
PRESS RELEASE PRESS RELEASE- Southern Wisconsin, focus Delavan, Lake Geneva, Janesville , Elkhorn, Whitwater, other State Communities
THE TIME IS NOW, A PUBLIC FORUM ON 9/11 TRUTH.
DATE: SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2009
TIME: 10:AM - 6PM
PLACE: THE DELAVAN SUPER 8 HOTEL, CONFERENCE ROOM
PURPOSE OF EVENT: To present the latest information concerning the events of 9/11/01, much of which is critical, to the public as a service. There is much new information that has come to light that indicates some extremely troubling aspects of that day. The efficacy of the 9/11 Commission report has been called into question by it's lead legal counsel John Farmer. There has been confirmation of explosive residue in the debris from the towers. It has been confirmed by an employee of the FBI that our government had close connections with the Bin Ladens up until the day of 9/11. This is only a partial overview of the situation as it stands.
WHAT WILL BE GOING ON:
There will three films screened. In Their Own Words...family members of the dead speak out, Blueprint For Truth....architects and engineers describe in detail how the buildings could not have fallen from plane impacts alone, Zero...one of the best overviews of the entire picture of 9/11 and why new investigations are needed immediately.
There will be a number of folks on hand to field your questions and bring the public up to speed on the latest information.
There will be materials available to help enlighten others....available free or for your donation.
Discussion and questions will be encouraged.
The event will be closely monitored for civil discourse only.
Coffee and water will be provided.
This event is sponsored by the Wisconsin 9/11 Truth Coalition.
DIRECTIONS: Take the hwy 50 exit off of Interstate 43 in Delavan. The first light west of the exit on 50 make a left(south) and you will see the Super 8. It is behind MacDonalds.
If there are any questions from publications or citizens receiving this press release return an email.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Jonathan has posted photos of the "art students" (Israeli spies?) in the North Tower before 9/11, surrounded by boxes of 3-4 tons of...what?
Ed Rynearson posted Jonathan's segment from Truth Jihad radio garnering thousands of hits and pushing RadioDuJour.com into the top 100 of wordpress blogs worldwide! Yet you will search in vain for this genuine 9/11 NEWS story at the leading 9/11 truth news (gatekeeper?) site 911blogger.com.
Likewise you will search 911blogger in vain for news of Muslim Marine vet 9/11 activist Muhammed Abdullah, who has fought for 9/11 truth in court and then was targeted three weeks ago by a huge DHS raid that came in apparent reprisal for his 9/11 truth activism. Since when did the 9/11 truth movement stop caring when a truth activist is fired from his job for off-the-job activism, then intimidated by a DHS raid? Since 911blogger became an islamophobic gatekeeper site, that's when. The anonymous entities running 911blogger, who took it over by BUYING it (rather than earning their position through real truth activism under real names) are starting to resemble those Jeff Gates calls "the people in-between," meaning those who position themselves between the facts and the people who need to know those facts.
In my newsletter I just sent out a compendium of information on the Israeli links to 9/11, courtesy of Dick Eastman. Funny how none of that stuff ever shows up on 911blogger.
Several well-known 9/11 truth activists, including one who is part of the TruthAction cabal that usually badmouths me, have privately told me they admire my courage in discussing the Israeli angle, but "won't go there" themselves, out of some combination of fear that they will be targeted, and belief that any discussion of the topic is bad PR for the truth movement.
More pertinently, John Cobb, one of the world's top Protestant theologians, and my co-editor of 9/11 and American Empire v.2, wrote me saying he wasn't sure whether the 9/11 truth movement should be pointing the finger at Israel. (John will be joining me, along with Princeton professor and U.N. official Richard Falk, on Truth Jihad Radio October 31st...one heck of a back-to-back guest lineup for Hallowe'en!)
I wrote back to John: "Bottom line: From the geostrategic perspective, it makes no sense for the US to go to war against the Muslim world. Absent Zionism, the US would be allied with the Muslim countries in security-for-oil arrangements against Russia and China, and this would serve all imaginable US interests much better than the war on terror/Islam does. Since 9/11 and the phony war on terror serve Zionist geostrategic interests but harm American ones, it seems logical to assume that Zionists did it...especially when the assumption is backed up by so much evidence. Telling this rather simple truth might turn out to be a good move politically as well as ethically. Most countries' leaders and their populations are interested in pursuing their own nation's interest (however defined) not somebody else's."
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Great show today with Jeff Gates and Ellen Brown! The archive should be posted here soon.
Next Saturday Jonathan Elinoff of CoreOfCorruption.com will join me for a full hour to further discuss the news he broke on my show today:
Jonathan Elinoff calls into Kevin Barrett’s radio program to reveal a story he is breaking about art students who lived in tents on the 90th floor of the World Trade Center. He claims they lived there illegally for months before the attack and that they were later arrested after 9/11 and detained as part of an Israel spy ring although they are Austrian and German. Elinoff claims that he has photos and that the “art students” had 3 or 4 tons of boxes, blue prints and maps of security check points. Elinoff will be posting a youtube video on his site, http://www.coreofcorruption.com, explaining the story in more detail in the next 24-48 hrs.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Guardian's obituary for Keith doesn't really do justice to his passion for 9/11 truth, which is mentioned only in passing:
"By then back living in Scotland, Keith immersed himself in more local projects, worked as a gardener, and took up Buddhist meditation. The conflicts following 9/11 confirmed all of Keith's worst fears about the modern power system, and he lost some friends over his participation in the 9/11 Truth Movement. He established the campaign group All Faiths Against Terrorism, and built bridges with Muslim communities."
To get a sense of Keith's vibrant enthusiasm for 9/11 truth, savor this email he sent out in June, 2008:
From Keith Mothersson, June 4th, 2008:
I couldn't believe my ears: Two minutes into this 6.49 minutes video clip Chomsky lists US and England as 'the less violent countries' in his critique of 911 Conspiracy theories ! : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc&feature=related
Neutral summary of Chomsky's argument: Bush gained from 9/11 but that doesn't prove anything. The 'more violent countries' like Russia, China, Indonesia and Israel would use it to repress minorities, but the 'less violent countries' all round the world would merely institute or strengthen domestic control mechanisms, so in this respect the US no different.
Extremely unlikely any foreknowledge by Bush administration as they would have to have been insane to risk it, a) the danger was too high (firing squads, destruction of Rep party) , b) the likelihood of the truth being leaked in advance or subsequently was much too great, c) too unpredictable a plan as they couldn't predict 'the plane' would actually hit the WTC.
'Anybody who knows anything about the sciences' would instantly dismiss 911 conspiracies as the best labs in the world are constantly throwing up unexplained anomalies, that is just the way the world is, and with events such as 911 it is an error to impose post hoc patterns of interpretation which deny the messy reality of unexplained anomalies in complicated events.
So a) 911 conspiracies are just plain wrong b) diverting people from 'serious issues' c) even if true, who cares? analogy with JFK assassination, plenty of people get killed, supposing it was a hit by a jealous husband, so what?, the evidence against a high-level coup is overwhelming.
Comment: I mean single bullets turn corners twice all the time in the best labs in the world, and Galileo's laws of the speed of falling objects are often temporarily suspended ....NOT! see Philospher of Science Jim Fetzer deal with this bizarre line of argument: 'A law of Nature can not be violated. The government's position of 9/11 could only be true if you could violate half a dozen laws of nature.' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaYepwRb5II (excellent arguments destroying the official story about the Towers 'collapses', but IMO rather dated references to New Pearl Harbour, steel removal, etc - we now see much deeper and the story has moved on!)
For some reason, and despite the obvious conspiracy to lie about WMD to procure war on Afghanistan, a lot of folk still think scorning and NOT investigating theories about the AMD (act of mass destruction) of Sept 11 is the height of intellectual sophistication, and/or are in chronic denial due to unconscious identifications with Power.
The cultural 'meme' against 'conspiracy theories' and in favour of random chaos anomalies and co-incidence, etc should be seen as the perfection of plausible deniability in the interests of the Frats as they propagate racist legends to justify imperialism.
Zero tolerance for racist legends please, good people - or else refute Elias Davidson's detailed paper: http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/stories/911/noevidence.pdf or refute Jim Fetzer's Top Ten reasons to disbelieve the hijacker nonsense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6gtqAr241I 8.44 mins .
And now Chomsky of all people says the US is 'one of the less violent countries', well gee whizz ..... You get more sense and a lot more laughs from the Onion: 2.46 minutes: '9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous - Al Qaeda' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OIXfkXEj0&feature=related Enjoy!
The 'twin towers' were destroyed so fast the top floor fell/went away at the same speed (faster actually) as if it was falling through air, and not through the path of max resistance - namely through 109 other hugely strong floors of steel and concrete.
Far from being a 'diversion' 9/11 is the iconic fount of War on Terror/Clash of Civilisations propaganda, without challenging which we will always be treating the symptoms, the latest terror scares and scams, the latest Islamophobic provocations.
But 9/11 could be iconic for us. There is no dispute about the height of the twin towers, nor the speed they 'came down at', nor the laws of physics. So the Bush administration are now caught bang to rights naked, hundreds of scientists and 450 architects and engineers and lots of military brass and pilots and intelligence analysts have come out against the official bogey tale, ..... Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Patriots Question 9/11
So why on earth aren't all the anti-imperialist, anti-racist, socialist, green, peace movement, progressive organisations and parties and faith groups shooting at this wide open goal?
Keith Mothersson Joint Co-ordinator, 9/11 Truth Scotland
Monday, October 5, 2009
* * *
Michael Morrissey: Controlled Demolition as Limited Hangout
In my dialogue-gone wrong with Noam Chomsky, I was shocked when Chomsky argued that controlled demolition doesn't mean anything, because that would just mean Bin Laden did the demolitions.
Obviously nobody with a three-digit IQ, much less a four-digit one like Chomsky's, could fail to realize that only high-level Western insiders would have the access, expertise, and high-tech explosives to take down the three tallest skyscrapers ever intentionally demolished. Even more obviously, Bin Laden, a terminal (circa 2001) kidney patient in a cave, was hardly in a position to order NIST, FEMA and the FBI to cover up the demolitions.
From a public relations perspective, however, Chomsky may be on to something. My own dear mother recently admitted during her ten-second guest appearance on my radio show: "Yes, I think it was a controlled demolition, but I don't know who was behind it." Leaving aside the issue of my mother's IQ, which is actually quite respectable even though it took her almost a decade to figure out controlled demolition...I think her take on this is consistent with the way a lot of Americans will react as they gradually and rather foggily accept the evidence for demolition.
In his new essay Controlled Demolition as Limited Hangout, Michael Morrissey explains why the fairly obvious fact that there were no passenger airliner crashes on 9/11 is...well, important.
My only quarrel with Michael is his making Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones the bad guys. They are not. They are scientists who are tunnel-vision, laser-focused on the demolitions...and they have every right to be as clueless about public relations as Jim Fetzer is, which is saying a lot. As scientists, they naturally tend to study one topic at a time. (We humanists are the only people who do everything at once). And they have no expertise in aviation issues and crash forensics.
Crash forensics expert Col. George Nelson wrote more than four years ago that there was no evidence that any of the four airliners allegedly used on 9/11 crashed where we were told they did. And now Pilots for 9/11 truth has videos out that thoroughly debunk the government's stories of passenger airliners doing what we are told they did at the Pentagon and World Trade Center.
Anybody who believes the government's line about a 767 hitting the South Tower at 510 knots, a sea-level speed that is not just impossible but downright ridiculous, should listen to my recent interview with Ralph Kolstad...and anyone with a good counterargument should contact me at kbarrett(at)merr.com to set up an interview. I'd love to hear your case.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Warning, we got into some controversial stuff...
And speaking of controversy...my, er, dialogue with Jim Fetzer, discussed in previous posts, referenced Jim's disagreement with Michael Morrissey. For, Michael's response to Jim, click here. By the way, in case anyone missed the point, I think Michael's right about this.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
In my previous post I opined that Jim Fetzer must be crazy to be drawing the conclusions he's drawing, and using the language he's using, concerning a certain Greek newspaper report of 22/23 September, 2001. That report, headlined "ISRAELI PRESS: We Saved 4,000 of Our Own and ARIEL SHARON" stated:
"4,000 Jews who work [shifting to the next column] in the Twin Towers did not show up for work the day of the attack. Also the visit of Ariel Sharon to New York, who was going to attend a Zionist celebration that day, was canceled. In addition to that, 5 Jews were arrested four hours after the event, when they were caught recording the disaster. "According to these newspapers, the 4,000 [shifting to the next column] Jews and Ariel Sharon were prevented by the Secret Service of Israel [presumably the Mossad], which had advanced knowledge, and consequently they were saved." (source)
The Greek report cited alleged stories in the Israeli newspapers Haaretz and Yadiot Ahrandt as its source for this information.
Like Elias Davidsson and Michael Morrissey, I doubt that the Greek report is an accurate summary of actual articles from these two Israeli newspapers. And I think it is even crazier to talk about the New York "Jewish community" being forewarned of 9/11. The idea that the New York Jewish community, which numbers millions of people, could be warned about 9/11 in advance is insane. People who say this discredit themselves as sloppy thinkers and suspected bigots. That may be why stories like this were planted -- to discredit-by-association anybody who talks about the very real warnings to ISRAELIS (not New York Jews) via Odigo Instant Messaging Services and Zim Shipping Lines. These well-documented warnings, and perhaps others less well-documented, apparently reduced the anticipated 400 or so Israeli deaths (i.e. 4000 had the Towers been full) to only one or two, depending on which source you believe.
By spreading insane rumors about how "Jews" were forewarned, the Mossad has apparently successfully diverted attention from its actual warnings to Israeli nationals.
Anyway...yesterday Jim Fetzer and I discussed this over lunch, and agreed to do further research that could shed light on the question. Isn't that a better way to handle differences of opinion than internet flame wars and name-calling?
Stay tuned to this blog for updates on what our research uncovers.