If you like this blog

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

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Tales of Hoffman

I used to admire and respect Jim Hoffman, whose classic studies of the WTC demolitions were among the best of their time. Then he and his girlfriend Victronix appointed themselves the 9/11 Truth Thought Police and embarked on an ever-accelerating course of destructive criticism of some of the best 9/11 researchers and activists.

They protested a David Ray Griffin event in Oakland because Griffin (along with at least 90% of the truth movement) doesn't support their claim that Flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon. They attacked Loose Change, 9/11 in Plane Site, and 9/11 Mysteries -- the three best 9/11 truth videos of their time, which collectively brought this issue alive for tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of people. They started attacking me with an endless barrage of false and distorted accusations. Now, they're at the core of the miniature lynch mob going after Pentagon investigators CIT.

Hoffman and Victronix have always refused requests for radio interviews and failed to return phone calls--a very bad sign, since sincere 9/11 truth advocates are always ready to talk out their differences. Nonetheless I hoped to meet Hoffman and Victronix during my recent West Coast speaking tour, and  set up a talk with the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance in part for that purpose. I invited them very politely with my umpteenth peace overture. They didn't get back to me, and didn't attend the meeting.

Instead, their fellow 9/11 Thought Police officer, Brian Good, barged into the meeting (of a group from which he had been banned long ago after sexually harassing a local activist) in a V-for-Vendetta mask and costume, looming over the meeting in rigid, menacing silence for the last hour or so of the event, in what he evidently thought was a protest of my visit. A couple of times he reached into his cape and made lunging motions as if he were reaching for his V-for-Vendetta knife to throw at me. When he finally took off the mask and glared at me, his eyes looked disturbingly like Charles Manson's. (If you put Manson on a rack, stretched him out to about six foot four, and gave him a shave and a trim, you'd have a pretty good image of Brian Good.)

Good continued to stalk me, and Hoffman avoid me, for the rest of the tour. At my final talk, held in a private house in Sacramento, Good stood outside on the sidewalk in mask and costume from 6 pm to midnight, barking out angry remarks about me to passersby.

What in the world does the Hoffman-Victronix-Good clique think they're doing with their empty, destructive attacks on fellow 9/11 truth-seekers? 

Anyway, here are my thoughts about Hoffman's slideshow attacking CIT, originally composed as a long email to recent radio guest Ken Jenkins:

"Debunking CIT Debunking: An Answer to Jim Hoffman and Other Defenders of the South of Citgo Theory"

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Cognitive Psychologist Slams Cass "Cognitive Diversity" Sunstein

I thought this bit of dialogue from the comments on Cognitively Infiltrating Cass Sunstein deserved its own blog entry.  My response to the psychologist draws on Shadia Drury's reading of neocon cult founder Leo Strauss, as well as my own readings of Strauss. Speaking of which, I will be giving a talk entitled ""Islam, Neoconservatism, and the Unwarranted 'War on Terror'" at the upcoming London symposium Debunking the War on Terror on July 14th. -KB
Anonymous says: I'm retired from a private practice in psychology. Not 'psychotherapy' but teaching Cognitive Psych. At points it sounds like somebody is using the word Cognitive in inappropriate ways. Is there really a professor who has written a book asking if one has "Cognitive Diversity"?? Hmmm....all sounds a little suspect to me. too much of this whole article is not ringing true for me. But then I've been wrong before. This story is for real?



Kevin Barrett said...
My dear anonymous retired professor, I wish it WERE a joke. But unfortunately it is real. Cut and paste this link into your browser: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

Anonymous said...
Thanks for the link to the original paper. The term "cognitive diversity" only appears half-way through the paper, and then in the context of "beneficial cognitive diversity". The question is, beneficial to whom, i.e. the classic "who benefits". The answer provided is of course "the public" in being relieved of the cognitive dissonance-making distortions of those darned conspiracy theorist-nuts. It is hard to tell when the author is being satirical or when he is being patronizing, as in characterizing the Santa Claus myth held by children to be the result of a conspiracy by authorities (parents) and then seemingly straight-facedly applying that illustration to real conspiracy theorists. The author also arbitrarily concedes that some 'conspiracy theories' turn out to be true, but he has reasons for why that is, all about democratic open societies meaning that governments and other powerful entities can't hide their malfeasance for long. He cites Karl Popper to support this view. Popper would roll over in his grave, as the United States in its current propaganda-soaked media-concentrated state would not qualify as a true open society. Popper towards the end of his life woke up to the corrosive possibilities of mass media, even in a putatively 'open' society, as expressed in his interview in an Italian paper called (from memory) Popper Contra Televisiono (in Italian). Even for someone who was scrupulously open-minded and non-partisan, the paper ought to be seen as an embarrassment to the reputation of Harvard, where Sunstein taught. Oh, on the issue of terminology, Sunstein is wont to use the term "epistemology" in a very un-philosophical manner, where he really means essentially "belief system". Epistemology may entail beliefs about the appropriate stance to take in an inquiry, but it does not refer to the beliefs themselves, only the level of analysis that best explicates a thesis one is exploring. In other words, Sunstein is a glib idiot whose obfuscations are convenient for a compromised administration.



Kevin Barrett said...
Neocons/Straussians speak with forked tongue. One tongue-tine speaks to the masses (in this case the academic masses, who are foolish enough to believe in the rule of reason), while the other speaks to the neocon/Straussian elite. Straussians like Sunstein have such a low opinion of the (academic) masses that they don't expect to be called on the violations of reason and logic that appear in the first-level, superficial reading. Those violations of logic are both (a) the result of the imposition of the second-level, elitist reading, which contradicts the first-level reading, and (b) intentionally strewn about to confuse non-neocon readers and make them underestimate and thus overlook the neocon project: the overthrow of the Enlightenment and the establishment of an Orwellian dictatorship, in which the Party is invisible and made up of the neocons themselves. Let's look at a key example from Sunstein's paper: the Santa Claus analogy. If Sunstein really believed that the 9/11 "conspiracy theory" was false, would he use belief in Santa Claus as an example of a conspiracy theory? This example invites the careful, discerning reader (especially the reader who has read Strauss, who advocates precisely this kind of dissembling) to compare children who suspect that Santa Claus is an illusion foisted on them by their parents, to "conspiracy theorists" who believe that the official story of 9/11 is an illusion foisted on them by their government. This textual maneuver is not satirical, but it certainly is patronizing. Sunstein thinks non-Straussian readers are too stupid to realize that he is saying that both conspiracies are real, and both are benign. Parents deceive children about Santa Claus for their own good, and because humans are mythologizing creatures; likewise the neocon elite creates myths like 9/11 for the good of the nation (in this case mainly the nation of Israel, but that's another story). Nobody who has read Strauss could fail to see Sunstein's Santa Claus metaphor as a confession to involvement in the Straussian project of the creation and maintenance of the 9/11 myth.

Friday, June 25, 2010

Implausible Bangs vs. Absurd Fizzles: GWOT Attacks Too Big, Then Too Small

Terrorism is a military tactic. Conventional armies use it all the time. So so the ragtag bands of irregulars who oppose them.

Like all military tactics, terrorism is rational, deployed in carefully-calculated doses aimed at achieving the one overriding objective of all military effort: to get the other side to stop fighting.

The so-called Global War on Terror (GWOT) has been accompanied by a septic tidal wave of propaganda designed to obscure the simple facts stated above. We are told that that terrorists are irrational fanatics bent on destruction for its own sake. That, of course, is why we must pursue an equally irrational war of vengeance against them.

This propaganda is designed to obscure the central question about any terrorist attack (or any other military operation or activity): Who benefits, and how? Instead, we are told that terrorists are irrational, hateful maniacs, and taught to ask: Why do they hate us? As Thomas Pynchon said: If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

It should be obvious by now that anti-imperialist Islamists have derived no benefit from the series of terrorist attacks attributed to them over the past decade. On the contrary, it is their enemies -- hard line U.S. imperialists and the state of Israel, not necessarily in that order -- who have benefited.

Of the many ways in which GWOT terror attacks seem to work against anti-imperialist Islamists, the most noticeable is their scale. All terrorist groups know that terrorist incidents must be the right size -- neither too big nor too small. If an attack is too big, it stimulates the enemy's will to fight rather than sapping it; and if it is too small, it comes off as risible rather than frightening, like Spinal Tap's miniature Stonehenge

The funny thing about the GWOT attacks -- well, one of the funny things -- is their off-the-scale off-the-scaleishness. The GWOT-launcher, 9/11, was, by non-state-terror standards, humongous. Compared to it, all previous non-state-terror events were miniature Stonehenges. It quickly became the biggest event in history in terms of its impact on human consciousness (and more importantly the unconscious) with the possible exception of the crucifixion. And unlike the crucifixion, 9/11 impacted the global consciousness/unconconsious in a matter of minutes, not centuries.

9/11 was also grotesquely large in the disproportion between the means used and the amount of physical destruction wreaked. Two planes, we are told, brought down three of the biggest skycrapers in the world, obliterating them in seconds. And those planes, we are told, were commandeered with mere box-cutters. The brilliance and supreme competence of those who could wreak such massive destruction with such modest means would be nonpareil, had they actually done so.

Along with being outlandishly brilliant in their ability to pull off such an operation, the 19 box-cutter-wielding Arabs would have been monumentally, historically, over-the-top stupid to have wanted to. While a wave of small-scale terror in the US might have sapped the American public's will to continue running roughshod over the Middle East and paying for Zionist genocide, a gigantic, spectacular attack like 9/11 predictably had opposite consequences. Thus the Arab-Muslim perpetrators of 9/11, had there been any, would have been the most brilliant morons ever to walk the earth.

The years immediately after 9/11 witnessed a series of similar attacks in which the scale of destruction wildly exceeded the means of the alleged perpetrators, and the benefits accrued to the enemies of the alleged perpetrators.

In the 2002 Bali bombing, a mere car bomb supposedly blew up a hotel and killed over 200 people. Many features of the blast, including the five-foot-deep crater in the roadbed, looked like they had been caused by a micro-nuke. Indonesian spiritual leader Abu Bakr Bashir, among others, has stated that at least one of the explosions was a micro-nuke, and blamed US, Australian and Israeli intelligence agencies.

In Madrid and London, huge bombs blasted the metal train floors upward. How did the London bombers, supposedly carrying backpack bombs made out of drug-store peroxide, do that? Could bombs under the trains have been planted by professionals -- members of the security services?

In Mumbai, the 2006 train bombing that killed 209 people, and the 2008 attacks that killed 173, consolidated the radical Hindu-Zionist alliance that is at war with Islam in the Indian subcontinent, and energized bellicose anti-Islam and anti-Pakistan policies. Who benefited from this grand-scale carnage

Here in the post-9/11 USA, we have been spared subsequent oversized terror attacks. Instead, we are now being subjected to a minature-Stonehenge wave of terror--ludicrous little fizzles like "underwear bombs" that can't possibly blow up, propane tanks in Times Square that don't go off, and so on. If these events were reported honestly and given (lack of) attention proportionate to their (un)importance, they wouldn't even register as a blip on the radar screen of collective consciousness. Is the Zionist-dominated corporate media turning these minature Stonehenges into looming monuments of terror, in order to brainwash Americans into continuing the battle against Israel's enemies?

The war on terror is a dressing room in which everything you try on is either a hundred sizes too big or a thousand sizes too small. Nothing fits, nothing makes sense, but we're supposed to pretend everything is normal and the naked emperor is sporting fine apparel.

We'd better expose the phony "war on terror" before they decide to shelve the absurd little fizzles and return to implausibly big bangs.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Protesters Bar 9/11 Suspect Zim from US Port!

MondoWeiss reports that nearly 1000 demonstrators turned out at 5 a.m. yesterday morning in Oakand to stop the Israeli freighter Zim Shenzhen from docking--and were successful when workers from Local 10 of the International Longshore & Warehouse Union refused to cross the picket line.

The Zim Shenzhen is owned by Zim Shipping Lines, which is 50% owned by the Israeli government. According to journalists Mike Ruppert and Christopher Bollyn, Zim broke its lease, and took a big financial hit, in order to move out of the 16th and 17th floors of the North Tower shortly before 9/11. This story is confirmed by the HistoryCommons.org timeline of mainstream media stories on Zim's perfectly-timed move.

Zim wasn't the only Israeli company that helped get Israeli nationals out of harm's way right before 9/11. As Bollyn reported
At least two Israel-based employees of  (Israeli-owned) Odigo (Instant Messaging Service) received warnings of an imminent attack in New York City more than two hours before the first plane hit the WTC. Odigo had its U.S. headquarters two blocks from the WTC. The Odigo employees, however, did not pass the warning on to the authorities in New York City, a move that could have saved thousands of lives.
 
Odigo has a feature called People Finder that allows users to seek out and contact others based on certain demographics, such as Israeli nationality.
 
Two weeks after 9/11, Alex Diamandis, Odigo's vice president, reportedly said, "It was possible that the attack warning was broadcast to other Odigo members, but the company has not received reports of other recipients of the message."
Kudos to the demonstrators and longshoremen, who may or may not understand how important it is to keep Israeli goods -- including a possible nuclear device to be used in the next big false-flag event -- out of U.S. ports.

[Index of WhatReallyHappened.com Israel & 9/11 articles]

Sunday, June 20, 2010

The Trial of Splitting-the-Sky: The YouTube Videos

Tony Hall, Professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge, writes:

Hi Kevin.

Here's an effort at a brief overview  with a point of entry to the 28 YouTubes we made in our Bush-STS-McKinney-Clark events. Put it to whatever use you so wish (or not). Thanks for being the number one media interpreter of our action. 


Ramsey Clark Comes To Calgary to Help in the Case of Splitting The Sky versus George W. Bush: An Introduction to a New Series of You Tubes

By Anthony J. Hall
Professor of Globalization Studies and
Co-Founder of Our Own CBC (Citizens’ Broadcasting Cooperative)

20 June, 2010

In these You Tubes, Our Own CBC presents the record of a major public event addressing the unaccountable lawlessness of the organized criminals who presently control the world’s dominant machinery of military and psychological warfare. There is a long history of imperial conquest behind the concentration in a single superpower of so much military power to kill, maim and intimidate--- so much power to manipulate human perceptions through psychological warfare that demonizes and dehumanizes the real, imagined, or constructed enemies of American empire.

The continuing saga of imperial warfare is presently justified by a founding fable constructed to justify the anti-Arab, anti-Muslim aggressions of the 9/11 Wars. The importance of these fourteen You Tubes lies in the contemporary significance of the broad-ranging discussion they contain. It lies in the willingness of the speakers to address with eloquence the most pressing issues of war and peace, law and lawlessness, punishment and impunity, truth and deception.

The event features the contributions of Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General of the United States under the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. At age 82 this legendary American jurist traveled (economy class) to Calgary in order to advocate for his old friend and client, Splitting The Sky. STS, or John Boncore as he was christened by his Italian father, is the Native activist and Attica Brother who attempted a citizen’s arrest of George W. Bush in Calgary. The former Attorney-General first represented John Boncore in an appeal of the conviction for what happened on the day that would change the life of the nineteen-year-old Italian-Indian forever. STS makes it absolutely clear that he would not be a free man today had not Ramsey Clark been able to push back the violent force of the incarcerating state. Because of the dogged persistence and integrity of Mr. Clark’s legal representation, the Mohawk activist was able to leave behind him 16 years in custody and move beyond the contested narrative concerning what did or did not happen at Attica Prison on that fateful day in 1971 when the institution’s inmates briefly took control of the jail.

In an important segment of the You Tubes Mr. Clark describes his understanding of the Attica prison debacle and the subsequent growth of the penal system in the United States. Today this lucrative penal empire incarcerates about 3,000,000 US citizens in a privatized complex of businesses that derives higher levels of profit from processes that criminalize Blacks and other minorities at disproportionately high rates.

The veteran of Attica, the Mohawk Warriors and the American Indian Movement attempted to dramatize the need to arrest the world’s most notorious credibly accused war criminal on March 17, 2009 when the former US president gave his first public address as a private citizen at the Telus Convention Centre in downtown Calgary. Rather than attempting to arrest the man who so obviously meets the criteria of criminality as spelled out even in Canada’s own Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000), the Calgary Police Force chose to place the rule of political expediency above the rule of law. Rather than adhere to the Nuremberg Principles by enforcing Canadian law together with the universal jurisdiction of international law on the man who repeatedly sanctioned with his signature the vast and prolific war crimes of the Bush regime, local law enforcement officials chose to arrest and incarcerate STS for Obstructing Justice.

The trial of Splitting The Sky took place on March 8 and 9 of 2010. Where the Crown had four witnesses to press its case against STS, STS was denied his repeated request in open court to have Cynthia McKinney and I serve as witnesses in his defense. Just as the trial was being shut down in the Calgary Court House by Judge Manfed Delong, Cynthia McKinney was being detained by Immigration Officials at the Calgary Airport. When this long-serving Congresswoman for a constituency in Georgia was finally allowed to enter Canada, she spoke at the University of Calgary along with Splitting the Sky and I on a podium where together we addressed many fundamental issues of war and peace, life and death. In the process I introduced the citizens’ process that will lead to the articulation of the Calgary Principles for the Prevention of Crimes Against Humanity Through the Enforcement of Laws Prohibiting Aggressive Warfare.

(See Cynthia McKinney-STS series at:)

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzDuXTFOR8g

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emO-EuF3-9Y

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMHiD8PWYzg

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iga_3f1kiWU

Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L88fXyYtLMw

Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ9UxPSxtaA

Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y-_VFXS540

Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yocqf0sTsW8

Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsXdA606DY8

Part 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dAp4kk5RZ0

Part 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV3AnyxcWEo

Part 12: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYhwbwpjxQA

Part 13: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2h5nteKLvA

Part 14:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wUl_wUDSGY


The series of fourteen You Tubes with Ramsay Clark can be seen as a kind of sequel to the fourteen You Tubes with Cynthia McKinney. In the verdict handed down the day following Ramsey Clark’s address to the group at the University of Calgary, STS was found to be guilty as charged but eligible for a “conditional discharge.” STS can avoid a permanent criminal record on the condition that he report to a probation officer for one year and that he pay $1,000 to a charity of his choice. STS intends to seek permission from his probation officer to make the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth the recipient of his charitable donation ordered by Judge Delong. Ramsey Clark made legal history in Calgary when he spoke as a witness in the proceedings of the case that some have dubbed Splitting The Sky versus George W. Bush. In his address to the court Mr. Clark emphasized the importance of STS’s voice in the United States on social justice issues. He spoke of how he and STS have spoken together frequently on the same public podiums in the peace movement. Mr. Clark closed his presentation by indicating that he “loved” STS “like a son.”

30

Anthony J. Hall is Professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge. His new book, Earth into Property: Colonization, Decolonization, and Capitalism is to be published by McGill-Queen’s University Press in September. Earth into Property is the second volume of The Bowl with One Spoon. Volume One of the Bowl project is entitled The American Empire and the Fourth World.

(See Ramsay Clark-STS series at:)

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA3IP7N3XyY

Part2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRTaldLqZJA&annotation_id=annotation_493172&feature=iv

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_hHFiUGcTU&annotation_id=annotation_65422&feature=iv

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2p5mI-s6Vw&annotation_id=annotation_684529&feature=iv

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6aCYbhdEPI&annotation_id=annotation_114064&feature=iv

Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWMQkRSeKhw&annotation_id=annotation_979179&feature=iv

Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKHbZMvhBaE&annotation_id=annotation_515524&feature=iv

Part 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PMDvo9tBJE&annotation_id=annotation_142742&feature=iv

Part 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAv-tbVp4EI&annotation_id=annotation_282255&feature=iv

Part 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gWAYqROOik&annotation_id=annotation_996469&feature=iv

Part 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sLG_tVMhmY&feature=related

Part 12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2tm2PwG2ls

Part 13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXlMnv6Doas

Part 14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2uAZMXpDlM&feature=related

Joshua Blakeney Interviews Ramsey Clark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ylYDoDJwrs&feature=related

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Doublespeak, Doublethink, Double-Standards: I Think I'm Seeing Double!



Noun  1.    doublespeak  - any language that pretends to communicate but actually does not; equivocation, evasion. 2. - a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth.     
online dictionary

Remember Catch 22's The Man Who Saw Everything Twice?


The leader of this team of doctors was a dignified,
solicitous gentleman who held one finger up directly
in front of Yossarian and demanded, 'How many
fingers do you see?'
'Two,' said Yossarian.
'How many fingers do you see now?' asked the doctor,
holding up two.
'Two,' said Yossarian.
'And how many now?' asked the doctor, holding up none.
'Two,' said Yossarian.
The doctor's face wreathed with a smile. 'By jove,
he's right,' he declared jubilantly. 'He does see
everything twice.'

The news stories these days are so full of doublespeak that if you hold one up in front of me, I see two. For example:

1)
June 15, 2010
Christian Science Monitor
US opposes ICC bid to make 'aggression' a crime under international law
The Obama administration has resisted efforts by the International Criminal Court to include 'aggression' as a crime, mainly because it could impact US military operations abroad.

2)
June 15, 2010
AntiChrist Science Monitor
Ted Bundy opposes proposal to make sex killing a crime under international law
Serial murderer Ted Bundy has resisted efforts by the International Criminal Court to include 'sex murder' as a crime, mainly because it could impact his love life.

Another example:

1)
Israel to investigate aid ship raid
Israel's army has announced the creation of a team of high-ranking officials charged with examining and learning from the deadly May 31 operation against a Gaza-bound aid flotilla.

2)
Manson family to investigate Tate-LaBianca raid
Charles Manson has announced the creation of a team of high-ranking Manson Family members charged with examining and learning from the deadly August 9th-10th 1969 operation against two Hollywood residences. Manson then thanked Athur Sulzberger Jr., chairman of the New York Times company, for appointing Manson's nephew, Bernie Manson, to cover the story for America's newspaper of record.  (Real-life version of this story)


* * *

When the "unpleasant truth" being hidden is mass murder in which the media itself is complicit, I guess doublespeak is the only option.




Saturday, June 12, 2010

Confessions of a Crypto-Jew


Okay, okay, I admit it! I'm a crypto-Jew! After all, John Kaminski says so.

Kaminski recently sent out a mass email with the subject line "Kevin Barrett my old enemy."

Why am I Kaminski's enemy? He calls me "the leader of the band" and explains: "Kevin Barrett, married to a Muslim or not, is a secret Jew. Just look at the guest list on his radio show — all Jews, or mostly, pushing Jewish books about 9/11. He's a bad joke and a serious mole." Kaminski adds that my alleged followers Gilad Atzmon, Wendy Campbell, Stephen Lendman, Adrian Salbuchi, Jim Fetzer, and Carol Brouillet, also his enemies, are all Jews.

While I wish I could claim all these talented, accomplished folks as my followers, doing so would make me almost as delusional as Kaminski. None of them would recognize me as their leader, and only a couple have Jewish backgrounds.

Long story short, I seem to attract abuse from paranoid nutballs. (Take Brian Good. Please.)

What rock do these people crawl out from?

Kaminski describes himself thus: "A journalist who served as editor at no less than eight different small newspapers over a period of three decades, Kaminski more recently has distinguished himself on the Internet as one of the very few who wholeheartedly opposes this Jewish perversion of reality that now threatens the health of every living thing on Planet Earth."

For a paranoid, bigoted lunatic, Kaminski is a fairly good writer. Take Louis-Ferdinand CĂ©line, halve the talent and quadruple the bigotry, and you'd have a French Kaminski.

Here's what I think explains Kaminski: As a not-terribly-successful American journalist, he was working in a field dominated by Jews. Correctly perceiving that American journalism is corrupt and insanely pro-Zionist, and perhaps noting that less talented people who happened to be Jewish were getting more promotions and opportunities, he grew increasingly disgusted, over-reacted and began hating all things Jewish.

My first-ever radio show featured Kaminski as the pre-arranged guest. Somewhere into the second hour he went into a nasty diatribe against Jews. I argued with him for awhile, found that I was getting nowhere, and threw him off the air. He's been my sworn enemy ever since.

Brian Good, the 9/11 sex stalker who spends his life in his parents' basement seeking out obscure 9/11 websites to post "Barrett is a Jew hater," resembles Kaminski in his venomous paranoia and hatred of all things Barrett...except that he thinks I'm anti-Jewish rather than pro-Jewish. Maybe someday they'll bump into each other picketing one of my events and fall in love. Or get into a fistfight arguing about whether I'm a Jew-lover or an anti-Semite.

Actually, Kaminsky's complaint that I have a lot of Jewish radio guests isn't entirely inaccurate. As a Muslim, I'm interested in dialogue with non-Muslims, especially those who have something interesting or important to say. I did edit an interfaith dialogue book, after all, and recently contributed to another. Being Jewish is not going to count against you when I go looking for radio guests. Being a bigoted, paranoid lunatic is.

While the wackos on one side deride me for being a Jew-lover, and those on the other side for being a Jew-hater, I'm going to take a lesson from the Arab folk hero Juha.

One day Juha was riding his donkey and his son was following him on foot. A group of people passed by. “Look at that man,” they commented, “riding and letting his son walk. Doesn’t he have any pity?” So, Juha dismounted and let his son ride the donkey, while he walked along behind. Another group of people passed by. “Look at that lad,” they commented, “riding the donkey while his father walks. Doesn’t he have any manners?” So, Juha mounted the donkey together with his son, and they went on their way. They passed by a third group of people. “Look at that heartless man,” they commented, “riding the donkey along with his son. Doesn’t he have any pity for the beast?”
So, Juha and his son both dismounted and walked, driving the donkey on ahead of them. They passed yet another group of people. “Look at those two imbeciles,” they said, “tiring themselves out walking, and there’s the donkey in front of them without any load.”
So, Juha and his son carried the donkey between them, and walked along like this. They passed still another group of people. “Look at these two madmen,” they said, “carrying the donkey instead of letting the donkey carry them.”
At that the two of them let the donkey fall.
“Let me tell you something, son,” Juha said.
“You can never please everyone!”

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Why Apologize, Helen!?


Don't get me wrong, I love Helen Thomas. Here is my email inviting her on my radio show:

Dear Helen Thomas,

I'm sorry to see the only honest journalist in Washington retire...and would love to interview you on my talk show!  My next openings are Saturday, June 26th, 7 to 8 pm Eastern, and Tuesday, June 29th, noon to 1 pm Eastern. 

Like you, I was nudged out of my job for telling too much truth. I taught Arabic, Intro to Islam, African Literature and Folklore at the University of Wisconsin-Madison from 1995 till 2006, when I was hounded out of the University by Wisconsin state legislators who didn't like the political views I had expressed on a radio show. Now I teach inner city kids English for a living, write the occasional book, and try to tell the truth, no-holds-barred, on my radio shows.

By the way, the remarks that got you in trouble were basically correct. Israel is the last European settler colony, and it needs to decolonize ASAP. Israeli Jews who don't want to live as equals with the natives should go back to Europe, just like the pieds-noir, Afrikaaners, British Kenyans etc. etc.

Anyway...thanks for all your terrific work!

Kevin


Still waiting to hear from her. Meanwhile, my only complaint about Helen's anti-Zionist truth-blurt is...why the bleep did she apologize? Why apologize to traitors who have taken over our media in service to a hostile foreign power? Why  apologize to apologists for genocide? Why apologize for telling the truth?

I had the same thought when I caught Van Jones on the Bill Maher show last night, kissing up to that smarmy, idiot-grinning little Zionist prick. (No, I don't watch this kind of tripe regularly -- in fact, it was the first time I've watched American TV in many years...not counting Jesse Ventura and similar stuff on youtube.)

Van Jones, you may remember, apologized profusely for having signed the original 9/11 truth petition. I guess that's why he still gets invitations from Maher and his fellow Zionist media dominators.

As I told Russia Today: Kevin Barrett 9/11 - 'Van Jones should've done what I did!'

When Hannity came after me, I didn't apologize.

When my University of Wisconsin-Madison colleague Marshall Onellian publicly called me a "fruitcake" and ridiculed my religion, I didn't apologize. I kept my sense of humor, gave it right back to him--and stood up for the truth.

Does Helen Thomas really think that if she apologizes, the Zionists who dominate the media will someday give her her job back? That Bill Maher will be her buddy again?

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think you should apologize for doing wrong...not for doing right.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Profiles in Corruption: A Tale of Two Cover-Ups on Truth Jihad Radio


Mirror mirror on the wall, what's the ugliest cover-up of all? Some say the JFK murder cover-up. Others prefer the US government execution of Martin Luther King, Jr. Then there's Pearl Harbor...and of course 9/11.

But for sheer outrageous hideousness, you can make a case for the cover-ups of (1) the Israeli massacre of unarmed US sailors aboard the USS Liberty on June 8th, 1967; and (2) the Nebraska-based CIA-linked child prostitution ring servicing the top level of the US power elite known as the Franklin scandal.

Is it really possible that Israel could launch a vicious, premeditated attack on a U.S. spy ship, kill 34 sailors and wound 174, and have the whole thing swept under the rug by cover-up commissars threatening the lives and families of the survivors? Is it conceivable that some of the most horrendous child abuse ever reported anywhere, on a truly massive scale, could be covered up by elite CIA-linked criminals, pedophiles and stooges...because the CIA is in the business of inflicting sexual tortures on innocent children?

Is the US Israel's slave state? Are we governed by monsters?

Unfortunately, the answer to the above questions appears to be "yes."

Truth Jihad Radio Sat. 6/12/10, 5-7 pm Central, American Freedom Radio (to be archived here.) Call-in number: 512-879-3805.

First hour guests: USS Liberty survivor Phil Tourney and Mark Glenn, authors of What I Saw That Day: Israel's June 8th, 1967 Holocaust of American Servicemen Aboard the USS Liberty and its Aftermath.

Second hour guest: Nick Bryant, author, The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse, and Betrayal. Bryant's book is the exhaustively-documented, definitive version of the story John DeCamp told in The Franklin Coverup -- the story also told in the "disappeared" video Conspiracy of Silence. It is, as he puts it, "the ultimate American nightmare." It's time to re-open this case and put the monsters out of business.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

"I Don't Like Bush Either": Splitting-the-Sky trial ends favorably!

(I'll be reporting on this toward the end of my radio show, with guest Rabbi Weiss, today...we hope for a call in from STS!)

The Calgary Herald reports:

CALGARY - A Chase, B.C., man will not go to jail after being convicted on Monday of obstructing a peace officer while protesting former U.S. president George W. Bush's visit to Calgary last year.

Provincial court Judge Manfred Delong handed a conditional discharge to John Pasquale Boncore, 58, and placed him on probation for a year.

Boncore, who uses the name Splitting the Sky, must make a $1,000 donation to a charity of his choice and pay a $50 victim fine surcharge as conditions of his probation.

Trial observer and Splitting-the-Sky supporter John Duddy reports:
I spent the afternoon in court listening to the Splitting-the-Sky case.

He won.

No criminal record, he has to make a donation to his favourite charity.

Ramsey Clark spoke on behalf of the defendant; the Crown did not object.

Overheard the Crown lawyer in the elevator say "I don't like Bush either".

Thanks for signing the petition.

And thanks to Calgary Social Justice Unitarian members who signed. 

JD.

Congratulations to Splitting-the-Sky, who faced up to two years in jail, for striking a huge blow for justice--and staying free to fight another day!!!

Monday, June 7, 2010

A Massacre is Not a Massacre: a poem for the USS Liberty and Mavi Marmara survivors

I will be observing the 43rd anniversary of the Israeli massacre of defenseless US sailors aboard the U.S.S. Liberty tomorrow, June 8th, on The Kevin Barrett Show... with special guest Rabbi Weiss of Naturei Karta, Jews United Against Zionism.  Then this Saturday, June 12th on Truth Jihad Radio I'll be speaking with USS Liberty survivor Phil Tourney and journalist Mark Glenn, authors of What I Saw That Day: Israel's June 8th, 1967 Holocaust of American Servicemen Aboard the USS Liberty and its Aftermath. (My radio schedule here.) Meanwhile, here's a wonderful "not a poem" by Ghassan Hage.
-KB

THIS IS NOT A POEM; A MASSACRE IS NOT A MASSACRE


A massacre is not a massacre
Ghassan Hage

I don't write poems but, in any case, poems are not poems.
Long ago, I was made to understand that Palestine was not Palestine;
I was also informed that Palestinians were not Palestinians;
They also explained to me that ethnic cleansing was not ethnic cleansing.
And when naive old me saw freedom fighters they patiently showed me that they were not freedom fighters, and that resistance was not resistance.
And when, stupidly, I noticed arrogance, oppression and humiliation they benevolently enlightened me so I can see that arrogance was not arrogance, oppression was not oppression, and humiliation was not humiliation.
I saw misery, racism, inhumanity and a concentration camp.
But they told me that they were experts in misery, racism, inhumanity and concentration camps and I have to take their word for it: this was not misery, racism, inhumanity and a concentration camp.
Over the years they've taught me so many things: invasion was not invasion, occupation was not occupation, colonialism was not colonialism and apartheid was not apartheid.
They opened my simple mind to even more complex truths that my poor brain could not on its own compute like: "having nuclear weapons" was not "having nuclear weapons," "not having weapons of mass destruction" was "having weapons of mass destruction. "
And, democracy (in the Gaza Strip) was not democracy.
Having second class citizens (in Israel) was democracy.
So you'll excuse me if I am not surprised to learn today that there were more things that I thought were evident that are not: peace activists are not peace activists, piracy is not piracy, the massacre of unarmed people is not the massacre of unarmed people.
I have such a limited brain and my ignorance is unlimited.
And they're so fucking intelligent. Really.

Ghassan Hage is professor of anthropology and social theory at the University of Melbourne.

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Zionists brutalize, humiliate, kill Americans...for how long?

How long can they get away with it?


Listen to O'Keefe describing how he helped disarm members of the Israeli death squad that was executing his fellow activists:

I said this straight to Israeli agents, probably of Mossad or Shin Bet, and I say it again now, on the morning of the attack I was directly involved in the disarming of two Israeli Commandos.  This was a forcible, non-negotiable, separation of weapons from commandos who had already murdered two brothers that I had seen that day.  One brother with a bullet entering dead center in his forehead, in what appeared to be an execution.  I knew the commandos were murdering when I removed a 9mm pistol from one of them.  I had that gun in my hands and as an ex-US Marine with training in the use of guns it was completely within my power to use that gun on the commando who may have been the murderer of one of my brothers.  But that is not what I, nor any other defender of the ship did.  I took that weapon away, removed the bullets, proper lead bullets, separated them from the weapon and hid the gun.  I did this in the hopes that we would repel the attack and submit this weapon as evidence in a criminal trial against Israeli authorities for mass murder.

I also helped to physically separate one commando from his assault rifle, which another brother apparently threw into the sea.  I and hundreds of others know the truth that makes a mockery of the brave and moral Israeli military.  We had in our full possession, three completely disarmed and helpless commandos.  These boys were at our mercy, they were out of reach of their fellow murderers, inside the ship and surrounded by 100 or more men.  I looked into the eyes of all three of these boys and I can tell you they had the fear of God in them.  They looked at us as if we were them, and I have no doubt they did not believe there was any way they would survive that day.  They looked like frightened children in the face of an abusive father.

But they did not face an enemy as ruthless as they.  Instead the woman provided basic first aid, and ultimately they were released, battered and bruised for sure, but alive.  Able to live another day.  Able to feel the sun over head and the embrace of loved ones.  Unlike those they murdered. (full report here)

The USA, the world's most powerful nation, normally does not appreciate having its citizens murdered, brutalized and humiliated by the armed forces of shitty little countries. But when the shitty little country is Israel, whose fanatical partisans dominate the US media and own Congress and the White House, apparently anything goes.

Imagine if an Iranian or Venezuelan death squad committed a similar act of piracy and mass murder. There would be hell to pay.

Yet Israel, which massacred the crew of the USS Liberty forty-three years ago next Tuesday, and probably blew up the World Trade Center on 9/11, has already cost the US taxpayer 1.6 trillion dollars according to a report in the Christian Science Monitor. Every year, Americans cough up billions more to keep the Zionist settler colony afloat. When the Israelis set off a nuclear weapon in an American port, as they are planning to do according to US military insiders, American taxpayer dollars will have paid for the operation.

It's time for the USA to use all of its power -- diplomatic, financial, and military -- to go after its real enemy. By telling the truth about 9/11, ending Zionism, and restoring Palestine to the Palestinians, the US would not only recover its good standing in world public opinion, but also regain the undying friendship of the people of the energy-producing countries. It's a chance to do well by doing good. What are we waiting for?







Thursday, June 3, 2010

Netanyahu: "Criticize us today, you'll be targeted tomorrow"

Benjamin Netanyahu is a close friend of confessed WTC-7 demolisher and insurance fraudster Larry Silverstein

In an apparent threat to the world, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has warned that countries that criticize Israel today "will be targeted tomorrow." 

According to the Washington Post:

"The same countries that are criticizing us today should know that they will be targeted tomorrow," (Netanyahu) said, just a day after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called Israel's policy toward Gaza "unsustainable." 

Is Netanyahu suggesting that if the US drifts too far out of Israel's control, we'll be hit with another Zionist-sponsored 9/11-style false-flag attack?