If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Saturday, November 7, 2009

My Introduction to Nick Kollerstrom's "Terror on the Tube: Behind the Veil of 7/7"

Nick Kollerstrom was my second-hour guest today on Truth Jihad Radio,  5-7 pm Central, www.AmericanFreedomRadio.com. The show will be archived a few days later here.  My complete radio schedule is here. [Note: the last half-hour of the show did not broadcast because I lost my internet and phone service from 6:30 to 7:10 p.m. Charter Communication tells me that over 100 houses in my neighborhood, including mine, lost service for some unknown reason at that time. Maybe somebody in NSA/MI6/Mossad doesn't like Nick?]

INTRODUCTION to Nick Kollerstrom's Terror on the Tube: Behind the Veil of 7/7

by Kevin Barrett, www.truthjihad.com

It is often said that knowledge is power. But this simple three-word sentence can mean different things to different people.

For the followers of Malcolm X, it means empowerment through self-education. For the followers of Foucault, on the other hand, there is no such thing as knowledge per se, apart from the workings of power; what we take to be knowledge is simply a shadow on the wall of our cave, cast by an infernal blaze of power that is always hidden somewhere behind us, just out of view.

The conflict between these two positions is what is really at stake in today's terror wars. The first position is the foundation not just of Islam, but of all true religions--and all true philosophy as well. Religion, after all, teaches us that (metaphysical) truth is indeed available to those who strive for it; while philosophy means "love of wisdom" and likewise involves the quest for truth, restricting itself (as religion does not) to critical methods.

The other position, that knowledge is an illusion created by the play of power, derives from Nietzche and reaches its absurd extreme in the judeo-nazism* of Leo Strauss. Strauss, the top student of leading Nazi philosopher Carl Schmidt, taught Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the rest of the neocons that there is no truth, no good, and of course no God, and that justice is simply what the strong seize for themselves. According to Strauss, the elite--that is, the neocons--are exempt from morality, and ought to take power covertly and rule by foisting big lies upon the masses.

The first position--that truth is real and available to those who sincerely seek knowledge--is a torch being carried today by many people of diverse outlooks--and also by the religion of Islam, the core of a (re)-expanding civilization.  (In Islam, God is also known as al-haqq, "the Truth," and the Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, has famously urged us to "seek knowledge even unto China.")

The second position--that there is no truth, just power--is a dark message being broadcast not just by the neocons and postmodernists, but also by universities, think tanks, and the controlled corporate media, all of which unabashedly shy away from truths that cut too sharply against the grain of power. This situation reflects a decadent civilization's loss of faith in truth, in knowledge, even in existence itself.

The masters of illusion who fabricated the "clash of civilizations" often frame this alleged event as a clash of civilization per se, identified with the West, against the uncivilized barbarism of non-Western peoples, especially Muslims. The reality is rather the reverse. Civilization rests on a bedrock faith in truth and knowledge. When that bedrock is shaken, civilization collapses. Those who have fabricated the big lie known as the "war on terror" are the real barbarians. Like termites, they are gnawing away at the foundations of civilization. The civilized people, the defenders of civilization, are those who seek knowledge and proclaim the truth.

Nick Kollerstrom is among the planet's leading defenders of civilization, and his book on the London bombings is exemplary in its willingness to follow the truth wherever it leads. And here, as in the case of 9/11, it leads very quickly to a very uncomfortable place.

As Kollerstrom shows us, with regard to the 7/7 London bombings, knowledge is indeed Power--first name Peter. By simply googling "Peter Power 7/7" any bright twelve-year-old can quickly learn, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the 7/7 bombings were an obvious, bald-faced inside job.

Peter Power, for those who have not yet googled him, is the Scotland Yard terror chief who, on July 7th, 2005, was head of the British security firm Visor Consultants. In the evening of July 7th, 2005, Peter Power appeared on television and stated that on that very morning, he, Peter Power, as part of his work with Visor Consultants, had been running a "terror drill" that perfectly mimicked the actual terror attacks, including the exact times and locations where the bombs went off. Unfortunately Power did not reveal the name of the agency that hired him to run the drill. Subsequently, Power apparently realized his mistake, and began offering a series of ludicrously unconvincing retractions.

For the benefit of those unable to see that two and two make four, Kollerstrom painstakingly calculates that the odds of a terror attack randomly matching an exercise of this kind are about one in a billion.

Unlike Nafeez Ahmed, the author of the only other critical work on the London bombings, Kollerstrom follows the ugly truth exposed by Power's revelation (and by reams upon reams of other evidence) to its logical conclusion: We now know that 7/7 was an inside job designed to frame Muslims and hype the bogus "war on terror."

But what good is it to know something like that? Isn't it more advantageous to simply "raise questions about the official version of events" as Ahmed pretends to be doing--even as the questions he raises, and the information he presents, blow the official story out of the water and reveal the event as an obvious false-flag operation? After all, by pretending to be simply raising questions, Ahmed has been able to undermine the "war on terror" while keeping his university teaching position. Some of us who have spoken more plainly have not been not so lucky.

Despite its pecuniary drawbacks, plain speaking has the advantage of enabling action in a way that "simply raising questions" does not. In ordinary life, when we know something, we are prepared to take action. For example, if mere questions have been raised about the likelihood of rain, we may not yet feel compelled to find an umbrella before venturing outside. When we finally conclude that we know it is raining--perhaps by looking for ourselves--we take appropriate action.

Likewise, it is fairly easy to question the official version of 9/11 or 7/7 without feeling the need to act. "It will turn out to be like the JFK case," such people often say. "We will never really know what happened." The unspoken corollary to this position is: If I knew it was an inside job, I would have to take action. Taking action would be uncomfortable, even painful. Therefore I must ensure that I don't really know that it was an inside job. I had better not learn too much about this case. And I had better use every available psychological defense mechanism to remain unconvinced by those who claim they do know. I will begin by believing that anyone who knows something like this must be a "conspiracy theorist." That way I can dismiss the whole argument without even having to consider it, simply by mindlessly accepting a pejorative portrayal of the person who advances it. And if anyone tells me I'm falling for the ad hominem fallacy, I'll just say I don't speak Latin.

Kollerstrom's book is not for that kind of person. Only those brave enough to risk their easy equanimity will dare approach it.

The knowledge that we have been lied to so horribly is heartbreaking. So are all the horrors that grew from the lie: The mass murder of more than a million innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan, the assault on freedom, the torture and persecution of tens of thousands of people whose only crime is to profess the religion of Islam. The only way to even begin to atone for such horrors is to confront the lies that produced them. And we must confront those lies head on, with no equivocation or blathering excuses.

Kollerstrom's forthright discussion of 7/7 is followed by an equally acerbic look at the fake terror show trials that followed. As a chemist, Kollerstrom is in a good position to know that even Muslims, with all the power of Allah behind them, cannot turn drugstore hydrogen peroxide into a high explosive by fiddling with it in the lavatory of an airliner. Everyone who has been inconvenienced by the insane "no liquids or gels" so-called security measures adapted in the wake of the liquid bomb hoax needs to read Kollerstrom and weep--whether with grief, laughter, or some combination thereof.

In the end, the reader of this book will understand that the post-Cold War West is being terrorized not by Muslims, but by the Western state apparatus itself. This is hardly surprising, since we now know that it was NATO (under the command of the Pentagon) that was carrying out the worst "terrorist attacks" against Europeans during the Cold War. What makes it even less surprising, for those capable of independent thought, is that the very definition of the state is "that bureaucracy which can plausibly claim a monopoly of violence in a given territory."

How can we make the transition to a form of civilization not based on violence? That is the question that must be answered, and soon, if humanity is to succeed in its role as God's vice-regent on earth, preserving our planetary home as a garden paradise, and venturing forth to explore other worlds.

By exposing the fact that the expression "state terror" is redundant--virtually all the terror that humans inflict on each other is inflicted by states--Nick Kollerstrom and his colleagues in the truth movement are laying the foundations of a Copernican revolution in consciousness and social organization. Once we find that we can do without the terror of the state, and that we can live together in joy rather than apart in fear, we will look back at the so called war on terror as the last gasp of a psychopathic elite. And we will look back on Nick Kollerstrom as one of the brave pioneers who first stepped outside the fear-mongerers' illusion into the light of truth...and beckoned for us to join him.

* * *

* "judeo-nazism  -  too provocative in my view: why not zionist-influenced crypto-nazism or zionist- and nazi-infuenced doctrines of Leo Strauss ?"  (editorial suggestion by the late, great Keith Mothersson)

Keith may have been right, as he so often was. The expression, while provocative, is meant as a mirror image to the equally provocative "islamofascism" which, unlike "judeo-nazism," is both completely inaccurate, and widely used in polite society and the mainstream media.  

Since "fascism" means "the merger of corporate and state power in a militarized society," and since Islam is generally opposed to both corporate AND state power, the expression "islamo-fascism" is an Orwellian misnomer.  As for Strauss's judeo-nazism, Shadia Drury has explained that Strauss's post-religious Jewish identification, as well as his training as the ultra-radical #1 student of top Nazi philosopher Karl Schmidt, makes "judeo-nazism" an accurate description of Strauss's philosophy.


  1. Thanks, Kevin. A wonderful essay and one pertinent to me often. I just visited an old friend back east who lives in a rural area. Those people denied every word I said about 911. I had to shut up and I am not sure I am welcome again.
    Larry White
    Antelope, Ca

  2. Aristotelian Objectivity: Foundation Of Best Of Western Culture, Now In "Decline..."
    (Apollonian, 7 Nov 09)

    Kevin, this is tremendous, outstanding essay of yours for purest intellect--though not courage--on the very most basic dichotomy of all metaphysics ("first philosophy," according to Aristotle, the founder and originator) and philosophy.

    U're wrong, I submit, when u say it, the basic dichotomy u otherwise describe so well, comes partly fm Nietzsche who was really a moralistic who wants to merely apply the subjectivist standard to ethics, for justification of anti-rationalist, "Dionysian," "uber man" who works according to a standard all his own (subjective).

    Hence then the original and classic phrasing and exposition for this basic dichotomy u so well invoke is the "immanence" of OBJECTIVITY of Aristotle VERSUS the "transcendence" (subjectivity) of Plato, who was also the originator of the "Noble lie" concept then and now taken up by Levi-Strauss and his followers.

    Further, this virtue and principle of OBJECTIVITY is endorsed and championed (implicitly) by Christian Gosp. JOHN, as in 14:6 where Christ is also identified w. truth, quoting Christ, "And ye shall know the TRUTH, and the truth will set u free" (JOHN 8:32). For how can there be truth UNLESS there's objective reality to serve as necessary criterion?

    But question then is how do lies and lying come to prevail in so-called "civilization"? Answer is that all things corrupt in CYCLIC fashion of Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the West," whence successful, "prosperous" civilization/culture produces the HUBRIS of corrupted, now over-populated citizens who are now persuaded of their self-serving (and pathetic) "Moral virtue" known to Christians as Pharisaism and Pelagian heresy ("good works"), this founded upon fallacy of a perfectly "FREE" human will.

    Thus in Western culture, we can see at least THREE distinct waves of this Pelagianist moralism: (a) the first of St. Augustine who identified the original Pelagian heresy; (b) that denounced by St. Martin Luther versus Erasmus; and (c) the latest, styled in rationalist form, of Rousseau, Benthamite Utilitarianism, and esp. that of Immanuel Kant which continues to rule today, so romanticized in the public academic and state institutes of "thought-control."

    Regarding the "evidence" of 9-11 and 7-7, one must note the scientific process of INDUCTIVE LOGIC whence the evidence, consisting of particular instances and details, must necessarily lead to a general (hence "inductive") conclusion, whereby most logical suspects must DIS-PROVE their culpability.

    "Once u've eliminated the impossible, the remainder, no matter how improbable, is necessary solution set"--Sherlock Holmes (A. Conan Doyle).

    Thus we observe, for instance, the work of Chris Bollyn (see Bollyn.com) who documents the extensive Jew, Israeli, and "Zionist" connections with 9-11, for one thing, which are absolutely overwhelming. It's simply inconceivable 9-11 took place WITHOUT knowledge of Jews, neo-cons, Zionists, Israelis, and especially, MOSSAD.

    Do the Jews then "disprove" their responsibility?--absolutely not, on the contrary, rather confirming as they continue lies, cover-ups (these detailed most brilliantly by David Ray Griffin), threats, and constant campaign of intimidation, this as they proceed upon further outrages and scandals, like the wars in Iraq and Afgan, extending to Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and threatening Iran. Thus attention of American goyim is constantly diverted and distracted to the next horrific crisis.

    CONCLUSION: So keep up ur good work Kevin. Perhaps u'll advance to the courage of refraining fm censorship as u did for my last attempted entry for ur earlier blog, "Holocaustism...," 30 Oct 09. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

  3. Thanks, Apollonian. No censorship intended. The main issue is length. If you post two or more very long comments, please consider posting the second and thereafter long texts somewhere else and just post the url as a comment here, otherwise you kind of swamp the comments.

  4. Well written piece, for sure, and you pull together some worthy points. I'm all for Nick Kollerstrom. But Judeo-Nazism? Must we have another one of these oxymorons that certain people love to coin? And you spell Schmitt's name wrong. Since when was Leo Strauss Schmitt's "top student?"
    Leo Strauss isn't mentioned even once in several articles about Carl Schmitt, including on his long Wikipedia page! Strauss and the neo-cons may have quoted Schmitt, but I don't think he knew who they were.
    Yet you repeat several times the close connection between Schmitt the antisemite and Strauss the Jew. I now realize not to take your scholarship for granted.
    Still, you're doing pretty well. Hope you have Kollerstrom on again to talk about his book since we only got to hear a half hour.

  5. Schmidt's influence on Strauss is well-known. I go into this at some length in my book Questioning the War on Terror, and references (to Strauss scholar Shadia Drury) are provided.

  6. (not Susan, but her husband Eric)
    There is work to be done in our world--feeding the chronically starving, sheltering the homeless, healing the helplessly ill, protecting living beings, and--above all--retraining/ controlling our minds. Your work seems to come under protecting living beings--which is a great gift to all--although revealing the truth will also enable feeding, sheltering, and healing, those in need.

    But there is no need to call on a mythical Absolute Truth as the basis of our work. Really there isn't. There is an alternative, available to all honest thinkers.

    As a university-educated philosopher I'm aware of the search for "truth" in the West since at least the Greeks (although Socrates didn't put too much energy into it, rather into revealing hypocrisy, as you do), and in the East since at least the Vedas. Epistemology teaches us, if we're honest, that neither in our minds, nor in rocks/ trees/water, nor in agreement with others, can we find Absolute Truth. If we could, we'd have found it already, and everyone would agree on it, just as we all agree that water is made of two gases, that fresh food is delicious, and that being of service is more deeply satisfying than trying to acquire more for oneself.

    When we look in our hearts, rather than our heads, we find that nothing exists independent of our perception of it--not people's character, not a lightning tennis serve, not a fire, not even death. There is always someone who will genuinely see anything differently from how we see it. This shows us that nothing has an objective, absolute nature.

    The claim of "absolute truth" has been used by the heads of religious and political organizations to inflict unbearable pain and suffering on innocent people throughout recorded history. And the biographies of such "leaders" shows that they were in fact motivated by selfish greed and fear, only using the claim of "absolute truth" to influence others to carry out their murderous plans.

    However, there is a guide to decent, benevolent behavior that doesn't depend on a notion of "absolute truth." Try on this radical idea (first propounded around 600 BC by Gautama Buddha, ne Prince Siddhartha):
    "Correct view and virtuous action is that which leads to happiness. Incorrect view and non-virtuous action is that which leads to suffering. "

    When we look honestly--past the fears that drive our selfishness--we see that what leads to suffering is (in physical action) killing, lying, and sexual misconduct...(in speech) gossip, harsh words, idle chatter, and divisive speech...(in thought) envy, malice, and deliberately refusing to recognize wisdom.

    Conversely, what causes happiness is abandoning those behaviors, i.e., protecting all living beings, telling the truth, respecting sexual boundaries, kind, complimentary, uniting words, kind thoughts, peaceful intentions, and embracing wisdom.

    It's much more difficult to live virtuous lives than non-virtuous ones, because our own minds default to the latter. From significant perceptual, mental errors inherent in all minds, we default to selfishness and its henchmen--greed, anger, aversion, attachment, and indifference.

    If we focus on this teaching, we can oppose, skillfully, all the ills of the world. They are, after all, the same ills--with different technology and a larger reach--that people have tried to heal since human life began.

    I support you keeping on revealing the truth, and hating the lies. But please keep peace in your heart and don't hate those who lie. They're just like you and me. As a Teacher of Forgiveness since 1985, I have learned this over and over.

    Eric Schneider, author of
    composer of
    I FORGAVE MYSELF and Other Songs of Awakening