If you like this blog

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

Thursday, December 31, 2009

Will 2010 Be the Year Americans Finally Fight Back?

"Why Aren't Americans Fighting Back?"

A non-US-citizen celebrates an attack on the CIA, and asks why Americans tolerate occupation

A foreign friend of mine, who must remain nameless here, recently contacted me to wish me a happy New Year and to celebrate the martyrdom operation in Afghanistan that claimed the lives of eight CIA agents. "This is wonderful!" he enthused. "Eight CIA agents at once! They must have had excellent intelligence and pulled everything off perfectly."

I said I found it hard to get excited about a bunch of people getting killed, regardless of what they may have done to deserve it.

"That is the problem with you Americans," he said. "Half of you are too stupid to resist your oppressors, and the other half reject violence even when it is justified and necessary."

I told him I was flattered to be considered part of the non-stupid segment of the American public, but that even as a non-stupid non-pacifist I often find it hard to know when violence is justified or necessary.

"If your country were invaded and occupied by a hostile foreign power, your people slaughtered and tortured, your women raped, your religion and customs violated, your resources looted, would violent resistance be justified and necessary?"

"Of course."

"So when the people of Afghanistan blow up eight CIA agents, are their actions justified and necessary?"

"From their point of view, sure."

"What about from your point of view?"

"As an American citizen, I'm trying to change things peacefully through legal, Constitutionally-protected means of protest."

"You would be much more effective if you built a real resistance movement and blew up CIA agents. Or better yet CIA directors."

I explained to him that I wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to go about blowing up a CIA director even if I wanted to. It's obviously a lot more complicated than "stick a fuse up his ass, light it, and run like hell." And not all CIA directors are 100% bad. Remember William Colby? And what about all those former CIA people who have spoken out for 9/11 truth? What if somebody had blown them up?

"Your country is occupied by CIA-Mossad and the finance mafia that runs it," he said. "They killed the Kennedies. They killed Martin Luther King, Jr. They killed Wellstone. They killed Gary Webb. They kill everyone that gets in their way. They start wars that kill millions. They rig your elections. They listen to your telephone conversations, read your emails, and use your cell phone as a roving microphone. They blackmail everyone of note, and if they can't blackmail them, they frame them or neutralize them or kill them. Every American President since Reagan has been a CIA agent. Your Constitution is a dead letter. It was dead long before 9/11."

I admitted that this was all true.

"Your country is under occupation. In Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and other places, when people are occupied, they fight back. Why won't Americans fight back?"

I explained that a lot of us are fighting back. It's called the infowar.

"Infowar is great," he said. "But it doesn't cost them enough to change their way of doing business. If you want a bad man to change his behavior, you have to give him some incentive for change. You have to raise the cost of the bad behavior until it becomes intolerable. A lot of grumbling on the internet doesn't really cost them very much."

What would be the best way to raise the cost, I asked. A general strike? Riots in the streets?

"Yes, those are time-honored methods," he said.

I explained that the whole point of the infowar is to wake enough people up so that some day soon, when the economy gets bad enough, people will take to the streets, and the cops and troops will be on our side...like the final scene in V-for-Vendetta.

"V wasn't afraid to use violence as part of his infowar," he said. "Nor are the people of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ireland, Somalia, the Basque country, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Yemen, and everywhere else on earth where people are fighting occupation by the global financiers and their hired guns.

"What counts is having a culture of resistance. Where there is a culture of resistance, everybody pitches in to help. Some people set off bombs or organize attacks on occupation forces. Others, the great majority, fight the infowar and build a support network for the actual fighters. Even the biggest pacifist, where there is a culture of resistance, helps the resistance fighters by providing food, clothing, money, shelter, and encouragement, and by misdirecting the authorities and refusing all cooperation with them and sabotaging them whenever the opportunity arises."

I asked why pacifists would be helping an armed resistance.

"Because they recognize that the violence is coming from the occupier, and that only attacks on the lives and property of the occupier can raise the cost of occupation high enough to end it."

"But most Americans don't perceive themselves as victims of a violent occupation," I said. "We of the smart half see ourselves as occupiers of other countries, while the dumb ones see themselves as potential victims of violent terrorists who attack us because they hate our freedoms."

"Forget the dumb half," he said. "You need to convince the smart half that they are not occupiers. Why should Americans identify with the evil assholes who are raping the planet? Americans are under violent occupation, just like the people of other occupied lands, and they should build an effective resistance. You need to convince them to start thinking of it as an actual war, not just an infowar. In an actual war, the only thing that matters is reducing the enemy's ability to wage war, and to raise the cost of his continuing to wage war until the cost becomes intolerable."

I said I had no idea how to do that. Wouldn't attacks on lives and property be counterproductive?

"It depends whose lives and property," he answered. "Attacking ordinary Americans in their passenger airplanes and office buildings helps the occupiers, not the resistance. That's why the occupiers are behind so much false-flag terrorism. But attacks on the leading men behind the occupation of planet Earth...now that could be very productive. Attacks on their property, kidnapping of their loved ones, and of course assassinations, these tactics would raise the price of their behavior. If the powerful men who craft the evil policies had to live in fear, they would have a powerful disincentive to continue crafting evil policies."

Kidnappings? Assassinations? Are you kidding?! That would be WRONG, I screamed, Nixonesque in my self-consciousness, that would be SO wrong! Why, the very idea! How utterly APPALLING! Don't you realize that the bad guys could be listening in even as we speak?!

My friend just chortled, remarked on what a hopeless bunch of boobs Americans are, told me that he wouldn't ask me to celebrate any more blastings of CIA agents, wished me well in my infowar, and went back to wherever he came from.

I chewed over his words for quite some time. I decided I'm not sure I entirely agree with him, but I'll tell you this: they'd have to waterboard me quite a bit before I'd give up his name.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

What's wrong (and right) with Judaism? Douglas Rushkoff will join me for some interfaith dialogue next month

Douglas Rushkoff is the author of many excellent books, most recently Life, Inc. Another key Rushkoff text is Coercion, which I reviewed here. We will discuss his 2003 book Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Jews and Judaism Tuesday, January 19th, 2010 on Fair and Balanced.

My original radio show, Truth Jihad Radio, started out on Republic Broadcasting Network--and my very first broadcast featured John Kaminski, an early 9/11 truth supporter and writer of fiery op-eds. Halfway through the show, Kaminski started ranting against Jews and Judaism. I argued with him for awhile. RBN owner John Stadtmiller even came on and told Kaminski to "cool it, I don't want the ADL on my ass!" That just got Kaminski even more riled up. Finally Stadtmiller suggested I kick Kaminski off the air, which I proceeded to do. It was my first-ever show, and the first and last time I ever kicked a guest off the air. (It was also the last time I let someone else choose my radio guests for me.)

Since then, I have noticed that there is a vocal minority of people in the patriot radio community who dislike Judaism and/or Jews. These people fail to heed Adrian Salbuchi's common-sense observation that Judaism, Zionism, and the state of Israel are three different things.

If it weren't for Zionism and the criminal policies of the Israeli regime, such people would be far less numerous. Muslims, in particular, would be more likely to notice positive aspects of Judaism if their holy places were not the site of a genocidal occupation by a self-proclaimed "Jewish" state.

So...ask me about Zionism or Israel, and I have a simple answer: I'm agin' it. Ask me about Judaism, and we're in more complex and nuanced territory. My first question is, "which Judaism? The Judaism of child-killer rabbis, or the Judaism of Naturei Karta or Ken Biegeleisen or Douglas Rushkoff?" The three radically different approaches to Judaism of NK, Biegeleisen and Rushkoff all strike me as highly admirable, in different ways and for different reasons. At the root of all three approaches is an iconoclastic moral serious that is deeply rooted in the Jewish tradition, and which should be celebrated by Jews and non-Jews alike.

Rushkoff's book Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism earned rave reviews from the likes of Naomi Wolf, and angry diatribes from those Rushkoff might characterize as Jewish fundamentalists and unreflective Zionists. Rushkoff argues that Judaism is best regarded as an open-source code built around the central idea of an utterly transcendent, universal deity characterized by absolute oneness, the affirmation of which "amounts to a declaration of the unity of the universe" (10). Wait a minute -- that sounds a whole lot like Islam, whose core ideas are God's transcendence, universality, and oneness, and whose code is as open-source as it gets thanks to its rejection of any form of priesthood or rabbinate. Perhaps the resemblance is not purely coincidental, since Islam came to reaffirm the truth of the earliest prophets' message, not replace it.

In Nothing Sacred, Rushkoff argues that Judaism's core message -- iconoclasm, monotheism, and social justice -- has gotten lost in the post-Holocaust rush to Zionism and other neo-orthodoxies and fundamentalisms. It is a trenchant critique, as well as an appealing vision of what Judaism (and monotheism in general) ought to be.

I am tempted to apply Rushkoff's critique of Jewish fundamentalism to the contemporary Islamic scene, which is also plagued by various forms of obscurantism. One major difference, however, is that Islam is currently under attack by non-Muslim imperialist and colonialist powers--led by the Jewish Zionists--which makes it hard to fault those who rally around local cultural traditions, some of which they falsely equate with Islam, as part of their strategy of resistance. Telling a person whose culture is under genocidal attack to give up that culture, and adopt a more universal one, is tantamount to supporting the genocide. Or to put it another way: When a Westerner says to a Native American/Iraqi/Palestinian/Afghani "accept our liberal, tolerant, universalist way of life or we'll kill you!" I reach for my revolver.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

The global war on us

A New World War would be a global war waged by a global ruling class against the citizens of the world, with the aim of maintaining and reshaping hierarchical society to serve their own interests. It would indeed symbolize a New World War for a New World Order. In a globalized world, all conflict has global implications; the task at hand is whether the people can realize that war is not waged against a “distant” or “foreign” enemy, but against all people of the world. - A New World War for a New World Order The Origins of World War III: Part 3  by Andrew Gavin Marshall

There is a world war going on, and you, dear reader, are caught in the middle of it. No, that's not quite right. You are not in the middle. You are on the receiving end. It is a war of aggression, and you are the target.

A rapacious elite cabal has declared war against the people of earth, and the other life forms of earth as well. The only question that remains is, are you going to defend yourself? Or are you going to let them kill you and your planet?

I know this isn't a pretty thought. If all we ask of life is pretty thoughts, we can stick our heads in the sand and think anything we like until the ostrich-hunter mows us down.

War has a bad name, and justly so. If we could efface the reality by removing all verbal traces of war, violence, and aggression from our language, I would happily comply.

But when people are actually under attack, as we are, they are faced with an immediate existential choice: fight back or die. Fight back or let everything you love -- not just you but your family, your community, your ecosystem, your planet -- be destroyed.

This, in the end, is why 9/11 truth is so important. Most Westerners who buy the official version of 9/11 inevitably also buy the equally absurd fiction that the psychopathic elite's "war on terror" is against their enemies, not against them. When they realize that the masters of empire murdered  almost 3,000 people on 9/11, among them a great many Americans and Westerners, they will also realize that those of us who live in the West are, like the Palestinians and Iraqis and Afghanis, living under a murderous occupation by a mass-murdering psychopathic elite. And they will also realize that, like the Palestinians and Iraqis and Afghanis, we must fight back with everything we have.

Monday, December 14, 2009

We're coming for your house next, Arnie!

Arnold Schwartzenegger says the protesters who vandalized University of California President Robert Birgeneau's campus home are "terrorists." People like Arnie are saying similar things about the guy who whacked Italian fascist leader Berlusconi with a statue, breaking his nose and chipping some teeth.

I'm not surprised that a planet-killing psychopath like Arnie would talk like that. What IS surprising is that so many people who understand just how psychopathic our leaders are cannot bring themselves to cheer for protesters who mess up a University President's house or Il Duce's face.

Top US leaders, the world's biggest terrorists, are responsible for murdering millions of people in Iraq alone. To get even with such a leader, we would have to murder him millions of times...WHOA THERE! Though we are clearly within the realm of fantasy here--murdering someone more than once is not very realistic--the mere thought is enough to get most people's inner Secret Service agent kicking in the door to their skulls: "Stop! You can't even fantasize about that!"

Why have we been trained to react with horror and revulsion even to fantasies of violent attacks on psychopathic mass murderers who happen to be powerful...while we ignore the millions of murders by soldiers and cops on behalf of the psychopathic elite? The answer is that the powers that be want to maintain their monopoly of violence, because if their opponents are willing to use violence when it is effective, it will level the playing field and threaten their power, which rests on a preposterous claim to a monopoly on violence.

The truth is that the use or threat of violence by resistance forces often IS effective. I remember how amazed I was when I arrived at the Universite de Paris VIII in 1988 and discovered that universities in France were tuition-free. How could that be, I asked? My French colleagues patiently explained to me that every time the government tried to levy even a token tuition, students rioted in the streets, burning cars, smashing shop windows and battling the cops. After a few days of this, the authorities always relented and gave up their plans to charge tuition.

In a similar vein, the Rev. Frank Martinez of St. Mark's Church in New York City once explained to me how he and his friends had stopped a wave of police brutality. They had tried everything -- protests in front of the police station, press conferences with victims beaten within an inch of their lives, angry letters to the editor, and so on -- but nothing worked. Finally, someone had the idea of seeking out the offending officers' home addresses and putting up "wanted for police brutality" posters featuring the abusive cops' photos and home addresses along with brief descriptions of their evil deeds, and scheduling protests outside the officers' homes. The day those posters started going up, Martinez said, the NYPD suddenly became very cooperative, suspending some rogue officers and moving others out of the neighborhoods they had been abusing and into desk jobs. The moral: an implicit or explicit threat of violence is often the only way to deter a powerful psychopath.

People who put up with their tax dollars being used to murder millions of innocents, but who flinch at the idea of physically assaulting a fascist war criminal like Berlusconi, are suffering from a bizarre but very prevalent form of schizoid delusion. All such people should immediately read Endgame by Derrick Jensen, who shows with searing clarity how the common activists' insistence on "nonviolence" can be a debilitating neurosis. An extract:

"It is pretty clear to me that our horror of violence is actually a deep terror of responsibility. We don't have issues with someone being killed. We have issues about unmediated killing, about doing it ourselves. And of course we have issues with violence flowing the wrong way up the hierarchy." (Endgame v.2, p.685)

Violence SHOULD start flowing "the wrong way up the hierarchy," and ASAP.  The top of the hierarchy is perpetrating the most obscene forms of mass violence on an ongoing basis, and the people lower down need to start figuring out how to use violence, and the threat of violence, more effectively against the psychopathic mass murderers at the top.

The pathocracy invented the "terrorism" witch hunts in order to demonize anyone who resists their violence with violence, who turns violence back against the real perpetrators, who sends violence back "the wrong way up the hierarchy." Why? Because that's precisely what they're afraid of. They want us to "embrace nonviolence" and thereby prevent ourselves from ever posing a real threat to their power.

Yes, I do support all sorts of nonviolent resistance activities. I respect nonviolent activists, and my activism is of course 100% nonviolent and legal (since I obviously wouldn't be stupid enough to blog about any part of it that wasn't.) 

But I do confess to joining Fans of the Guy Who Hit Berlusconi.

And to admiring the kids who trashed Birgeneau's house.

And to imagining how cool it would be to burn down the Governor's mansion and kick Schwartzenegger's "terrorist" ass...and then mete out similar treatment to the 9/11 traitors and all other members of the psychopathic elite that Barrie Zwicker calls "the diabologarchy."

I'm not going to let the Orwellian brain police storm into my head and tell me I'm not allowed to have those feelings.

I do have them.

Maybe you should too.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Et tu, "young debunka"?!

This is a response to "Debunking Dad" whose first post, "Pull It," argues that Larry Silverstein was talking about pulling firefighters out of the building.

Sorry DD, but I'm gonna have to school ya!

As you know I'm an English teacher as well as a homeschool dad. So it is my professional duty to point out some errors in your blog post.

First, when you put words in quotation marks, they should be the words actually spoken by the person you are quoting. Adding your own interpretations in brackets is normally a bad idea.  It is usually preferable to just give the quote, then explain what you think it means.

More to the point, your interpretation that Silverstein was talking about pulling firemen out of WTC-7 is implausible. WTC-7's perfectly symmetrical 6.5 second collapse happened around 5:20 p.m. on 9/11/01 (twenty minutes after it had been prematurely announced by the BBC!) There were no firefighters to "pull" from WTC-7 that afternoon, because the firefighters were not allowed to enter the building. If you google around you will find videos of firefighters talking about how crazy it was that they were ordered NOT to enter WTC-7 and put out the relatively small fires.

Along with the fact that there were no firefighters in WTC-7 to pull out, please note that the idiomatic English construction exemplified by "we did X and then watched Y" normally refers to events that occur in very close temporal succession and have some kind of causal link. For example: "We pulled the marshmallows out of the fire and then watched their swollen brown surfaces exude thick, sweet smoke." In this instance, as in most other instances with this construction, the watching happens immediately after the pulling, and what is seen is the effect of what was pulled. Another example: "We pulled out of the driveway and then watched our house fade from view." Here, as in the marshmallow example, what was seen closely follows from what was done, both temporally and causally.

Imagine: You say "We pulled out of the driveway and then watched Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory on TV."  I say "huh?" You explain, "What I meant was that we pulled out of the driveway to go to school in the morning, and then that same evening we watched the TV show." Sorry, that doesn't parse,  because there is no close temporal or causal connection between the two events.

Getting back to the Silverstein quote: There could not possibly be a causal connection, because pulling people from a high-rise doesn't cause it to collapse. And there could not possibly be a close temporal connection, because there were no firefighters in WTC-7 immediately before the collapse (nor were there any during the hours before it.)

Finally, if he were talking about pulling firemen out, he would have used the pronoun "they," not "it."

For all of these reasons, Silverstein's quote only makes sense if he was talking about "pulling" as in "demolishing" the building.

Why would Silverstein admit to demolishing a building whose demolition would earn him 700 million dollars in insurance fraud money, based on the false idea that it collapsed as the result of a terrorist attack?

The best hypothesis is that when Silverstein was interviewed for the America Rebuilds video, he and the other perps hadn't yet gotten their story straight about WTC-7. Something obviously went wrong with their plan, since they cannot have planned to demolish WTC-7 in front of cameras at 5:20 p.m.  They probably planned to have it hit by Flight 93, which was shot down before it got there. Or perhaps they were going to take it down under the cover of the dust clouds from the demolished Towers. In any case, when Silverstein did this interview, he probably couldn't imagine that anyone could plausibly claim that such an obvious controlled demolition was anything else. So he nervously tried to make up an excuse about it being demolished to prevent further loss of life.

When Silverstein mentions the "er, fire department commander" he hesitates noticeably, suggesting that he knew that person under a different designation. In fact, the chain of command in the NYFD on 9/11 was probably altered by the insertion of FEMA personnel (or 9/11 conspirators in those roles) supposedly due to the massive Tripod 2 bio-terror exercise scheduled for 9/12/01. So the acting "Fire Department commander" was probably a federal official who was part of the 9/11 operation.

Note that Silverstein credits himself with the idea for conducting the demolition. This is not entirely implausible, since Silverstein is a billionaire kingpin in the  Zionist mafia that seems to have played a major role in 9/11, especially in New York. For some background on Silverstein and his accomplices, google "Pakalert Press Israel did 9/11 all the proof in the world."

Finally, I would be remiss in my duties as a homeschool dad if I failed to point out that you have a sentence fragment in the second paragraph of your post, and that "lets" is missing an apostrophe.

So...nice try, and "keep on debunking!"

Love, Dad

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Accused 9/11 plotters may face NY "Guantanamo" - Reuters

Accused 9/11 plotters may face NY "Guantanamo" - Reuters

KSM and the False-Confession Five are obviously not guilty, as Rolf Lindgren and I have shown in our exhaustive annihilation of the federal charges. What's more, the vast majority of the world's Muslims know they're not guilty:

"On average less than one in four [Muslims worldwide] believes al Qaeda was responsible for September 11th attacks. Pakistanis are the most skeptical--only 3 percent think al Qaeda did it."  -WorldPublicOpinion.org survey

Yet the Reuters report tells us these obviously innocent men who have had their souls destroyed by incessant torture will continue to be tortured in New York, where they "can expect solitary confinement, 23-hour-a-day lockdowns, constant video surveillance and almost no visitors."

Since hardly any Muslims believe that al-Qaeda in general or these guys in particular did 9/11, why so much security? Is the real purpose of isolating these defendants and destroying their minds to make sure that they don't get an adequate defense, which would easily prove them innocent?


Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Lennon was shot 29 years ago today

In honor of John Lennon, who was murdered by probable CIA mind-control victim Mark David Chapman 29 years ago today, I'm relinking an old essay which I'm developing into my next book:

Twilight of the Psychopaths

Also re-linking the media coverage of John Lennon endorsing my congressional campaign:

Taking a page from Russ Feingold's 1992 "endorsement" from Elvis Presley, Barrett got Tim Biancalana, a dead ringer for John Lennon, to perform at the Dardanelles. About 30 people attended the event and watched the 2006 documentary, "The U.S. vs. John Lennon."

Speaking of Lennon, Truth Jihad Radio just celebrated its third birthday. The show still features the exact same John Lennon bumper music, starting with Gimme Some Truth, that it started out with on RBN.

Okay, enough Lennon!

Getting back to late 2009...

Hot news flash! Rolf Lindgren and I just annihilated the entire list of charges against the six 9/11 patsies! For the complete 17,000-word article, visit my main website,  TruthJihad.com.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Why no attacks since 9/11-anthrax?

The 9/11 truth movement says the official story of 9/11 makes no sense: skyscrapers imploding from relatively small office fires, 767s being flown by amateurs with pinpoint precision almost 600 mph at sea level (faster than the plane's maximum physically possible speed at that altitude), alleged crash sites that look nothing like crash sites, alleged hijackers who got on the planes without being caught on security videos and without any boarding passes and without being seen by any airline personnel and without showing up on any official passenger lists...and then turning up alive afterwards! I could go on like this, and often do.

If the official story of 9/11 itself is bizarre, the official meta-narrative around the events is even weirder. We are supposed to believe that back in 2001, an al-Qaeda cell in the US displayed extreme military competence in pulling off this spectacular, highly improbable attack. Yet since then, we have seen absolutely no evidence of any competently-planned attempts to attack the US "homeland," except for the anthrax attack, which the US government admits was a false-flag attempt to incriminate Muslims perpetrated by a US germ warfare scientist.

What makes this situation even more bizarre is that for every angry Muslim who wanted to harm the US back in 2001, there must be several thousand today. If 9/11 was really pulled off by a militarily ultra-competent al-Qaeda cell, there should be thousands of such cells operating in the US in 2009. And since Muslims now have so many more reasons to join al-Qaeda's jihad -- the criminal wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan for starters -- many more highly intelligent, realistic Muslims should be joining al-Qaeda now than back then. That means that there should be tens of thousands of al-Qaeda cells in the US right now, most of them far more competent than any 2001 cell.

Remember, al-Qaeda is not a centrally organized outfit. It's an unregulated franchise operation.  Anybody can start a franchise (including intelligence agencies hostile to the cause). The fact that Bin Laden has probably been dead since 2001 will not stop angry Muslims and Mossad spooks  alike from starting "al-Qaeda" franchises. So if US officials claim they have "disrupted" al-Qaeda by busting a few of the pre-2001 jihadis, and this explains why there have been no attacks since the admittedly false-flag anthrax attack, they're either out of their minds or lying through their teeth. I repeat: for every pre-2001 Muslim angry enough to want to do harm to the US, there are thousands now, thanks to the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If 9/11 had actually been the work of an al-Qaeda cell, would top US officials really adopt a policy aimed at producing tens of thousands of such cells?  Al-Qaeda, remember, thrives on anger at the Zio-American proxy occupation of key Islamic countries, as well as US support for Israel. The post-9/11 US wars of aggression in the region, and increased US support for Israel, are increasing than anger exponentially.

The 9/11 alleged hijackers were supposedly brilliant enough to defeat US air defenses, yet too stupid to just crash their plane into the nuclear reactor they were flying over, which could have provoked a Chernobyl-style meltdown and killed tens of thousands. Instead, they supposedly helped the city of New York and the Jewish mob that controls it, including billionaire mobster Larry Silverstein, cheaply demolish the biggest obsolete, asbestos-riddled white elephants in architectural history.

Hani Hanjour, a "terrible pilot" who could not even solo in a Cessna, was supposedly brilliant enough to slip by all of our AWOL air defenses and perform an amazing stunt maneouver to hit the Pentagon...yet too stupid to just dive into the roof toward the opposite side of the building, thereby killing thousands including Rumsfeld and other top brass.

If the US continues to demonstrate that it is an utterly bankrupt, decadent, immoral society firmly grounded in big lies and governed by a covert dicatorship of usurers, and if it continues to murder Muslims by the millions in criminal wars of aggression, and if it continues to kidnap and torture the best and brightest Muslim activists here and around the world (think Aafia Siddiqi, Moazzam Begg, and Sami al-Arian for starters), and if it continues to support Zionist genocide in Palestine, and if it continues to cover up the fact that American Zionists and imperialists, not Muslims, orchestrated the 9/11 attacks...the result, inevitably, will be that an ever-growing number of competent and dedicated people will wish to do it harm.

Conclusion: The best insurance against future terrorism is 9/11 truth.

* * *

*Note: As former CIA Bin Laden unit chief Michael Scheuer has repeatedly pointed out, al-Qaeda's aims are to eject US and Zionist forces from the Muslim world (including Occupied Palestine), eliminate the nation-states carved into being by the Western colonizers, and re-unite the Muslim ummah as a single nation. The vast majority of the world's Muslims agrees with those aims.
Where most Muslims disagree with al-Qaeda is in tactics: the Muslim majority holds to Islamic religious prohibitions against harming civilians, while at least some al-Qaeda sympathizers argue that the butchery of millions of Muslim civilians by the Zio-Americans legitimizes a certain amount of retaliation in kind. The bigger the outrages committed against Muslims, the more likely that some will abandon religous prohibitions against harming civilians and engage in terrorism. Therefore, the extreme outrages perpetrated against Muslims by the post-9/11 US and Israel should be seen as attempts to greatly increase al-Qaeda terrorism, not attempts to reduce or eliminate it.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Is the anti-war movement racist?

Don't get me wrong, I love the peace movement. I especially like the upcoming End US Wars rally in Washington, DC December 12th: http://www.enduswars.org/ .

But a lot of the white, middle-class people in the peace movement have a great big blind spot.

Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man describes a black man who is socially invisible in the white world. Splitting-the-Sky, the native American peace-and-justice warrior who is putting George Bush on trial in an act of civil resistance, seems to be equally invisible to much of the white, middle-class peace movement.

This guy should be getting the kind of publicity Cindy Sheehan got when she dogged Bush for murdering her son. But maybe because he's Native American, Splitting-the-Sky gets disinvited from mainstream peace rallies, even though he's just about the fieriest rabble-rousing speaker since Malcolm X.

Maybe Splitting-the Sky is too much of a revolutionary (he's been in armed conflict with the authorities more than once). Maybe he's too frank, too fearless, too in-your-face honest. Maybe he's just too real. Reality scares a lot of white middle-class people...especially the reality of 9/11, which Splitting-the-Sky exposes so eloquently and mercilessly.

Many unconscious racists on the liberal/left side of the political spectrum politely avert their eyes when informed by a non-white that 9/11 was an inside job. (Interesting how most African-Americans were suspicious from the get-go, while most whites fell for the official myth.)

Three-quarters of the world's Muslims, and 97% of the people in Pakistan (where al-Qaeda is supposedly hiding) say flat-out that al-Qaeda didn't do 9/11. When I point this out to white middle-class people, they just shrug, scoff, brush it off, or belittle the point. Their attitude is obvious: "Who cares what Muslims think?" The corollary: "They're just brown-skinned people, inferior beings, whose thoughts are of no consequence."

Wait a minute! This escalating war is supposedly targeting al-Qaeda, the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, who are supposedly in Pakistan. Those brown-skinned "inferior beings" in Pakistan are able to build their own nuclear weapons, so they can't be all THAT dumb. And yet the fact that 97% of them say al-Qaeda--a group they know much better than we do--didn't do 9/11, somehow doesn't matter?

If Western whites viewed the world's Muslims as equals, rather than brown-skinned inferiors, they would respond to that vast Muslim majority that says al-Qaeda didn't do 9/11 by demanding an immediate, comprehensive, exhaustive, fully funded investigation of 9/11 focusing on the possibility of official complicity.

Instead, Western whites have covered their ears and eyes, sung "la-la-la," and murdered more than a million Muslims.

It doesn't get any more racist than that.