If you like this blog

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

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Physics prof Denis Rancourt speaks out on 9/11 -- and gets it half right!

Physics professor and academic freedom fighter Denis Rancourt appeared on the Kevin Barrett Show yesterday and agreed that the implosion of World Trade Center Building 7 was clearly a case of controlled demolition -- but that the destruction of the Twin Towers might not have been! (The discussion of 9/11 occurs during the last 20 minutes of the show.)

Dr. Rancourt argued that the gravitational energy released by the Towers' coming down was great enough, and the mysteries of how various materials interact with each other under such conditions mysterious enough, to cast doubt on many of the apparent "smoking guns" of controlled demolition, including high-speed lateral ejections of multi-ton steel beam fragments, the pulverization of most of the buildings and their contents into sub-100-micron dust, the creation of rivers of molten steel in the rubble, and and the creation of unexploded hi-tech nano-thermite chips that have been found to constitute roughly .1% of the World Trade Center dust.

After the show, Denis emailed me to say that since the Towers' demolition isn't obvious to him, my argument for its obviousness to everyone with eyes may need revision.

Here is my response:

Hi Denis,

With all due respect to your expertise as a physicist, I think there are times when scholarly expertise can obfuscate rather simple matters, and I suspect this may be one of those times. 

I agree with you that it is impossible to completely rule out the possibility of viable alternate hypotheses for many of the apparent smoking guns of the Twin Towers' demolitions.  Indeed, it is impossible to completely rule out just about any hypothesis about anything. As you know, objects can theoretically fall up, rather than down, if all of the subatomic particles involved happen to emerge out of the collapse of the wave function in exactly the right way. Yet the odds against this are so great that we can effectively rule it out in all practical cases.

In the case of the destruction of the Towers, the explosive demolition hypothesis easily explains all ten features of these events that are exclusive features of controlled demolition of tall buildings. In other words, these features have occurred every time (or in a few cases nearly every time) a tall building has been demolished with explosives, and have never happened under any other circumstances, except, allegedly, on 9/11.  There are also several features that are unusual for controlled demolitions, but are easily explained by hypothesizing an explosive rather than implosive "deceptive demolition" designed to be hard to distinguish from a plane-and-fire-caused collapse. The deceptive demolition hypothesis easily and fully explains all aspects of this complex event. Yet you had to struggle to even begin to formulate an alternative hypothesis that could explain even ONE of the many bizarre or unprecedented features of this event (say, sudden onset, horizontal ejections, squibs, tiny bone fragments on neighboring rooftops, rivers of molten steel, a rubble pile only a couple of floors high, complete pulverization of nearly the entire structures and their contents into sub-100-micron dust, 100+ eyewitness reports on the record of massive explosions, and several reliable accounts of explosions starting before the planes hit, perfectly symmetrical descent of debris, hundreds of cars for many blocks around "toasted" by something that attacked steel, intricately manufactured (not randomly formed) nanothermite chips saturating the dust, iron-rich microspheres saturating the dust, Giuliani's foreknowledge of the "collapses," etc. etc.). In fact, you offered no hypothesis about any of the apparent smoking guns; instead, you argued in the vaguest possible terms that it was impossible to rule out a mysterious "something else" as the cause of a few of these phenomena, based on the mysteries of complex interactions of matter in gravitational descent when there is a lot of available gravitational energy.  This reminds me of certain perversely over-complex literary readings of fairly simple texts  by scholars who know too much about literature.

Even if we restrict ourselves to the physical evidence about the Towers, Occam's razor dictates that the simple answer -- controlled demolition -- is by far the best.  This "simple answer" is obvious to anyone with eyes.  And if look at other kinds of evidence, we would have very good reason to believe that the Towers were deliberately demolished even if there were no physical evidence of demolition.

I understand that as a physicist you are obliged to study this kind of event carefully before arriving at a conclusion. Joel Hirschhorn, a Ph.D. metallurgical engineer and former UW-Madison professor, came on my radio show a few years ago knowing nothing about the demolition hypothesis, listened to me, and then devoted a few months to studying the destruction of the WTC. After a bit of research, he agreed that controlled demolition is an absolute certainty in all three cases, but added that for him, it was not obvious -- it required a fair amount of research. So I do see your point, but would add that at the end of the day this is an issue where the simple, obvious, trust-your-eyes hypothesis is correct, as you will discover if you carefully study the issue.

Kevin

PS You might enjoy my "refutation" of an obnoxious colleague from the UW physics department...




Dr. Barrett Rebutts Professor Orwellian   

by Kevin Barrett (from the book Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie)

Re: Physics prof calls 9/11 conspiracist 'fruitcake'
'Since he can't evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn't have an opinion'

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51858


http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/physics_prof_calls_911_conspiracist_fruitcake.htm


A University of Wisconsin professor who works with 9-11 conspiracist Kevin Barrett says he's a "fruitcake" who is too biased in favor of Islam to teach a class on the subject.


Barrett, a Muslim convert, was recently cleared by the college to teach a course this fall titled, "Islam: Religion and Culture." Like many Muslims, he contends the 9-11 attacks were an "inside job" carried out by Bush administration officials and not Islamic terrorists...


"He's a fruitcake," says Marshall F. Onellion, a physics professor at the University of Wisconsin. "He has no education in any engineering or science area pertinent to how, or whether, buildings fall down when hit by airplanes. Since he can't evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn't have an opinion" that will influence students...


"I simply do not believe that an adult convert to Islam is capable of objectively teaching, or objectively grading, a course on his religion," he told WorldNetDaily. "Never would such a person be objective."

* * *

Barrett Rebuts Orwellian

University of Wisconsin Professor M.F. Orwellian's argument that colleague Dr. Kevin Barrett is a "fruitcake," and that only those with physics Ph.D.s are qualified to judge anything involving the laws of physics, was subjected to a calm, thoughtful, scholarly rebuttal by Dr. Barrett yesterday.

Dr. Barrett began by lucidly laying out the premise and conclusion of his argument: "Professor Orwellian is a wingbat, a dingnut, a moonboot--which is to say, an utter and complete imbecile with the malignant growth on his neck that passes for his head firmly implanted in his hindmost nether-regions. Even Steve Nass, the man with one N too many, whom I have cheerfully described as a moonbutt, does not have a head as empty, as putrid, and as deeply ensconced in his own posterior, as does my esteemed colleague the good Doctor Orwellian." Barrett then politely refused to speculate about what Professor Orwellian's initials might stand for.

Judging that Professor Orwellian's "fruitcake" argument had thus been convincingly rebutted, Dr. Barrett moved on to examine the assertions on which that argument was based. Dr. Barrett began with Professor Orwellian's claim that Dr. Barrett is unqualified to teach a Religious Studies course on Islam because he is a Muslim. "The idea that professing a particular religion or religious position makes one unqualified to teach Religious Studies courses will be news to every single member of the American academy besides Dr. Orwellian," Barrett pointed out. "Everybody who teaches religious studies has some religious position--be it atheism, agnosticism, or affiliation with a major or minor religious tradition. Likewise, philosophy teachers have their own philosophy. The idea that an atheist existentialist could not teach existentialism, an atheistic philosophy, because he or she happened to be an atheist and existentialist, is too ridiculous to contemplate. And the idea that we should fire almost the whole Jewish Studies department because most of its members are Jewish--or the African-American Studies program because most of its members are African-American--is insane. Obviously the good Professor has taken leave of his senses."

Dr. Barrett next took up Professor Orwellian's implicit claim that nobody without a Ph.D. in physics is competent to judge anything involving the laws of physics. Dr. Barrett--citing Samuel Johnson, who had refuted Bishop Berkeley's idealist position by kicking a stone--replied to Professor Orwellian's "physicists-only" argument by intoning "I refute it thus" and kicking Professor Orwellian sharply in the latter's gluteus maximus. "According to the law of angular momentum," Dr. Barrett pontificated, "my foot just described nearly one-quarter of a complete arc around a fixed reference point in the general location of my hip joint. And according to the law of conservation of momentum, it would have tended to continue in that direction unless acted upon by an outside force--in this case, the soft, flabby hindquarters of Professor Orwellian. But you don't really need to know that to understand that I have just kicked him in the ass."

Barrett then proceeded to take issue with Professor Orwellian's professional qualifications. "Professor Orwellian apparently believes that the large amounts of molten steel produced by the WTC collapses, documented in photographs, videos, and eyewitness accounts of 'rivers of molten steel' in the rubble, were produced by fires whose only fuel was hydrocarbons--namely, jet fuel, which is kerosene, and office materials such as paper, wood, plastic, and so on. Yet the melting point of steel is universally agreed to be in the neighborhood of 2800 degrees f., while hydrocarbon fires cannot exceed 1800 degrees f. even under laboratory conditions. Professor Orwellian is one thousand degrees short of a full melting point. I demand that he resign from his physics post forthwith, and return to his true calling, which is autoproctology."

The courteous scholarly debate between Dr. Barrett and Professor Orwellian elicited a decorous ripple of applause from Academic Senate members.

* * *

(See also:  "Groucho" Onellian: Who Are You Gonna Believe, Me or Your Own Eyes? and This Is an Orange)

* * *

The full World Net Daily article:

Physics prof calls 9/11 conspiracist 'fruitcake'

'Since he can't evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn't have an opinion'

World Net Daily | September 6, 2006: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51858

A University of Wisconsin professor who works with 9-11 conspiracist Kevin Barrett says he's a "fruitcake" who is too biased in favor of Islam to teach a class on the subject.

Barrett, a Muslim convert, was recently cleared by the college to teach a course this fall titled, "Islam: Religion and Culture." Like many Muslims, he contends the 9-11 attacks were an "inside job" carried out by Bush administration officials and not Islamic terrorists.

Specifically, Barrett argues Bush officials rigged the World Trade Center with incendiary devices to bring it down and start a war against Islam.

"He's a fruitcake," says Marshall F. Onellion, a physics professor at the University of Wisconsin. "He has no education in any engineering or science area pertinent to how, or whether, buildings fall down when hit by airplanes. Since he can't evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn't have an opinion" that will influence students.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology recently released a report on the WTC collapse that rules out such conspiracy theories about the use of controlled demolitions. It concluded the collapse resulted from structural damage to the buildings caused by the impact from the two Boeing 767 jetliners hijacked by Muslim terrorists.

The unusually large amounts of jet fuel from the planes ignited multi-floor fires reaching temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees, and significantly weakened the floors and columns "to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns," the report said. "This led to the inward bowing of the columns and failure of the south face of the WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers."

The independent 9-11 commission also concluded after some 1,200 interviews that Muslim hijackers were to blame.

But Barrett, who heads a group called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," speculates that pro-Israeli neoconservatives led by Vice President Dick Cheney toppled the Twin Towers with secretly planted explosives or incendiary devices such as thermite rods. It's a popular theory in the Muslim community. The anti-Bush left has also embraced it.

Barrett, who converted to Islam 13 years ago, teaches a course on Islam that critics say whitewashes the 1400-year history of jihad against the West.

His Wisconsin colleague Onellion says Barrett is not qualified to teach the course because his doctorate is in Arabic studies, not Islamic studies. And as a Muslim activist with an ax to grind against the U.S. government, he says he is incapable of teaching the course objectively.

"I simply do not believe that an adult convert to Islam is capable of objectively teaching, or objectively grading, a course on his religion," he told WorldNetDaily. "Never would such a person be objective."

University officials, however, are persuaded that Barrett can teach Islam objectively.

In a July letter to Barrett, Wisconsin provost Patrick Farrell wrote, "I have accepted your assurance that you could control your enthusiasm for your personal viewpoints on the top of 9-11 and present them in class in an objective and balanced time frame and context."

Onellion, who is co-authoring a book on science and religion called, "Seeking truth: Living with Doubt," says about half the members of a Wisconsin faculty group for academic freedom sided with the decision to keep Barrett on staff and let him teach the controversial course. The other half disagreed with the decision.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Sunlight Disinfects Sunstein - Now Bring on the War Crimes Tribunals

Cass Sunstein argues that the government should infiltrate 9/11 truth groups, "disable" 9/11 "conspiracy purveyors," and thereby promote the spread of "beneficial cognitive diversity."

To my readers,

David Ray Griffin's new book Cognitive Infiltration is absolutely brilliant. It elegantly does several things at once: * Puts forward  key 9/11 evidence; * Reveals the slightly hilarious inadequacy of the  official story defenders' case,  as exemplified by Cass Sunstein's "Conspiracy Theories" article; * Uses irony to demolish the neocons' philosophy of the noble lie -- the philosophy that in all probability led directly to the 9/11 inside job.

David has been out of the hospital for about a week and is better but apparently still needs a lot of R&R,  and says he may not be putting out more great books any time soon. So he says he would really  appreciate "hundreds of Amazon.com reviews of my latest book."  Please help him out! Buy and review Cognitive Infiltration at Amazon.com.

-Kevin Barrett, TruthJihad.com

Sunlight Disinfects Sunstein - Now Bring on the War Crimes Tribunals

A Review of David Ray Griffin's Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

By Kevin Barrett, Ph.D. Arabic-Islamic Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison; currently on unpaid leave for political reasons 

Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, appointed by his friend Barack Obama as administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has been named by Elena Kagan "the pre-eminent legal scholar of our time." Yet Sunstein is the lead author of a 2009 article, published in the Journal of Political Philosophy, that is so riddled with contradictions, lapses in logic, non-sequiturs, and other apparent absurdities--including the open advocacy of illegal acts by government officials, and the suggestion that it may one day be necessary to repeal the First Amendment and ban "conspiracy theories"--that it would likely flunk its author out of Political Philosophy 101. How can we reconcile Sunstein's avowed brilliance with such apparent idiocy?

In Cognitive Infiltration, David Ray Griffin's masterful analysis of Sunstein's (and co-author Adrian Vermeule's) wretched "Conspiracy Theories" article, Dr. Griffin posits a logical explanation for Sunstein's lapses. According to Griffin's provisional thesis, the many absurdities of Sunstein's "Conspiracy Theories" vanish if we assume that Sunstein is only pretending to be criticizing alternative conspiracy theories about 9/11. Sunstein's real target, Griffin provisionally suggests, is the official "19 hijackers" conspiracy theory of the Bush-Cheney administration.

While Griffin's hypothesis -- that Sunstein is a closet 9/11 truther -- irons out most of the inconsistencies, and unveils Sunstein's "Conspiracy Theories" as a masterpiece of esoteric writing, that doesn't mean Griffin believes it. Instead, Griffin briefly admits up-front, and reveals in more detail at the end, that the "Sunstein as truther" hypothesis should not be taken literally. Instead, it is Griffin's literary device for elegantly exposing the outrageous contradictions in Sunstein's article.

This raises the question: What did the supposedly brilliant Sunstein think he was doing when he wrote this abysmally stupid article -- and what did the Journal of Political Philosophy editors think they were doing when they published it?

Griffin suggests that the defects of Sunstein's article stem from the inherent difficulties of making a case against the 9/11 truth movement: "When the author of an argumentative essay makes self-contradictory statements, this is usually a sign that something is seriously wrong with the position being argued. Why? Because when authors are defending positions that are false, they find it very difficult to deny the true state of affairs completely, so that contradictions often creep in as implicit acknowledgements of reality" (147).

An example of Sunstein's "implicit acknowlegment of reality," in Griffin's view, is Sunstein's claim that there are only four possible ways the government could try to stop the spread of nefarious 9/11 conspiracy theories. These are (1): Inoculate the public by sending out "independent" debunkers, like the Popular Mechanics team led by the cousin of then-Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff, to oppose the 9/11 truth movement; (2) "Debias or disable" (!!) the "purveyors" of conspiracy theories; (3) Tax or fine people who spread conspiracy theories; (4) Outlaw conspiracy theories completely.

In fact, Griffin points out, if the alternative 9/11 conspiracy theory were false, baseless, and without evidence to support it, the government could easily expose it by sponsoring a series of debates between the most qualified people on both sides of the issue. Better yet, it could launch a fully-funded, fully-empowered, truly independent 9/11 investigation. The fact that it has not done so -- and that these possibilities are apparently invisible to Cass Sunstein -- suggests that the government, and Sunstein, understand that the alternative 9/11 conspiracy theory is true, and that any honest debate or independent investigation would reveal its truth.

If Sunstein understands this, he is being not just intellectually dishonest, but actually treasonous, in arguing for government suppression of a conspiracy theory about an act of treason that he knows or suspects is true. Griffin, ever the gentleman, does not come right out and say so.

But I am not so polite. As the eminent theologian John Cobb put it: "Kevin Barrett tells the appalling truth as he sees it in ways more appropriate to its shocking nature. That includes a lot of humor. He is never dull." So allow me to explain why I think Cass Sunstein, President Obama's friend and appointee, is guilty of high treason against the United States of America, and should therefore be tried and, upon conviction, tarred, feathered, run out of town on a rail, waterboarded, thumbscrewed, iron maidened, drawn and quartered, hanged, shot, electrocuted, roasted, pulverized, discombobulated, blown up with nanothermite, smothered under a mountain of manure, blasted off into outer space, flushed down the White House toilet, and generally annihilated by whatever means are at hand.

Taking up where Griffin leaves off: Sunstein, a political philosopher out of the University of Chicago, is undoubtedly acquainted with neocon guru Leo Strauss's teachings that rulers should lie to the masses. According to Strauss, the true rulers ought to be political philosophers whose writings "[R]eveal what they regard as the truth to the few, without endangering the unqualified commitment of the many to the opinions on which society rests. They will distinguish between the true teaching as the esoteric teaching and the socially useful teaching as the exoteric teaching" (Strauss, quoted in Griffin x).

As we have seen, Griffin provisionally pretends, throughout most of his book, that Sunstein's true (esoteric) message is pro-9/11-truth, while his socially useful exoteric message pretends to oppose 9/11 truth. In fact, Griffin does not believe this; it is just a literary device, albeit a brilliantly ironic one.

Might Griffin, too, have an esoteric message? And might that message be that Sunstein is indeed writing in Straussian code--but that the esoteric message is that the 9/11 "noble lie" is good and necessary for the state and the people, and should therefore be maintained at all costs, even by illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional measures?

This interpretation, even better than Griffin's "Sunstein as truther" hypothesis, explains all of the contradictions and apparent logical lapses Griffin finds in Sunstein's article, and then some. For example, it explains Sunstein's patronizing non-sequitur reference to the Santa Claus conspiracy. According to Sunstein, some children hold that the Santa Claus myth is the result of a conspiracy by authorities -- namely, their parents. But how does this shed light on 9/11 conspiracy theories? Sunstein doesn't tell us. A perceptive reader, however, may understand Sunstein's esoteric message: the 9/11 myth, like the Santa Claus myth, is false; both "conspiracy theories" are true; and in both cases, the authorities/parents are acting properly in withholding the truth from the people/children, in proper Straussian neoconservative fashion.

Such apologetics for mass murder and genocidal big lies are appalling, sickening, and -- not least of all -- treasonous. Cass Sunstein, get thee to a war crimes tribunal!

* * *

See also: Glenn Greenwald's article about Sunstein's "Conspiracy Theories": http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein

Monday, September 27, 2010

Anthony J. Hall and Joshua Blakeney Challenge Michael Shermer About His 9/11 Denialism


This just in from my friend Josh Blakeney of the University of Lethbridge (Alberta):

Dear Friends and Comrades,

Here is the latest action by Prof. Anthony J. Hall and I : We were so disgusted with Prof. Michael Shermer's lack of knowledge about 9/11 that we were compelled to intervene during his parodic lecture at the University of Lethbridge last night.

Shermer purports to be a skeptic (his magazine is named "Skeptic Magazine") who has read "ALL of David Ray Griffin's books" (DRG is actually his colleague at the Clairmont Graduate School ). However, Shermer is clearly somebody who has never engaged with any of the critiques of the government narrative about 9/11, a subject which he nonetheless talks about authoritatively to public audiences, conflating 9/11 truth-seekers with UFO spotters, Holocaust Deniers under the rubric of "conspiracy theorists".

As part of his deliberately satirical analysis he showed the audience cross-sections of the human brain indirectly implying that "conspiracy theorists" think how they do due to their biological makeup which harkens back to the notorious days when cities like Lethbridge and the wider hinterland of Alberta were leading the way in the eugenics movement. Like Sebastian Junger and Christopher Hitchens Shermer is somebody who serves the war machine's agenda by poisoning the public consciousness of our society. He has blood on his hands for his role in depoliticizing society, enabling the murderous 9/11 Wars.

We attempted to expose him as somebody who was profiting from the official story of 9/11. A true "conspiracy entrepreneur" indeed.  Like Hitchens he declares himself to be a materialist and sombody cocnerned with scientific reasoning. Yet, like Hitchens, when science becomes politically inconvenient he reverts back to government-sanctioned superstition whilst at the same time showing cross-sections of the brain and comedic imagery to audiences to convince them he is an authority on subjects which he is in fact seemingly ignorant of.

When I asked him to name one of DRG's books, all of which he purports to have read, he could not. When I asked him to name one academic who has defended the government conspiracy theory he cited himself. Shermer's comedy show was not worthy of an educated audience in a Canadian University. Prof. Hall should be acknowledged for making sure we attended the event and for speaking the truth in front of his colleagues many of whom sniggered like sophomoric school children. One of the U of L professors in the audience implied that I was an "asshole" (that's ARSE-hole for the British recipients of this email). The behaviour of these quack-a-demics speaks volumes about the state of the academy in the 9/11 induced Age of Impunity and Superstition.

I stayed up until 4am editing the attached You Tube video last night so that it could be posted within hours.

Sincerely,

Joshua Blakeney - Media Coordinator of Globlalization Studies -- University of Lethbridge

Video: Hall and Blakeney challenge Shermer:


Video: Kevin Barrett challenges Shermer, who admits 9/11 might be an inside job:

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Does Honey-Trap Smear Suggest WikiLeaks is for Real?

Is WikiLeaks for real? Gordon Duff says the real purpose of its Afghanistan leak was "to spread imaginary stories about Pakistan, the only nuclear power in the Middle East capable of standing up to Israel and the enemy of India." (WikiLeaks is Israel, Like We All Didn't Know.)

Then why is Wikileaks founder Julian Assange still being smeared by some intel agency with power in Sweden?

Recent Kevin Barrett Show guest Israel Shamir explains:

"In other words,  the farcical rape charges have once again been leveled against the Pentagon's Public Enemy Number One. Julian Assange now stands accused of: (1) not calling a young woman the day after he had enjoyed a night with her,  (2) asking her to pay for his bus ticket,  (3) having unsafe sex,  and (4) participating in two brief affairs in the course of one week. These four minor charges,  worthy of Leopold Bloom's mock trial in the Nightown chapter in Ulysses,  have been shaken and fermented until they were able to cook up a half-baked rape case!"

Shamir and co-author Paul Bennett paint the alleged "rape victims" as probable intelligence operatives in a honey-trap sting designed to smear Assange. An orchestrated chorus of voices from the left -- Assange's home turf -- follows up by yapping incoherently for his blood. Shamir again:

"For a smear that really sticks,  you need to get it from an ex-apostle. An accusation by a Caiaphas does not impress. If you are targeting a leftist,  hire leftists. For example,  Trotskyites were willing and useful tools against the Communists. Pseudo Anti-Zionists are currently being used to hamstring a genuine Pro-Palestinian movement."

And pseudo-truthers are being used to hamstring the genuine 9/11 truth movement. Voices of 9/11 truth who have charisma, speaking and/or writing talent, academic and/or authorial credentials, money, the courage to state the truth forcefully, the ability to command media attention (say, by running for public office) or any other asset that makes them dangerous often find themselves in the gunsights of the TrueFaction crew of pseudo-truthers.  Separately or together these folks have attacked Jimmy Walter (whose ability and willingness to spend millions made him the most dangerous truther ever); Webster Tarpley (a gifted, charismatic speaker, accomplished author and sophisticated political analyst); James Fetzer (a highly-accomplished scholar and author who is also a talented public speaker); Pilots for 9/11 Truth (the second-most-important professional association after Architects and Engineers); Citizen Investigation Team (the most accomplished investigators of the attack on the Pentagon); Sofia (maker of the most effective 9/11 truth film ever, 9/11 Mysteries); yours truly (Ph.D. Arabist, decent speaker and writer, organizer of David Ray Griffin's C-Span talk, link between the truth movement and pro-Palestinians including 1.5 billion Muslims); and generally anyone whose research demolishes the 19 hijackers myth, or implicates Israel/Zionism as the prime force behind 9/11.

Are the fake leftists and their dupes smearing Assange, just as the fake truthers and their dupes have smeared me and so many others?

Or is the "smearing" of Assange so obviously bogus that it may have been designed to backfire and bolster his credentials as a whistleblower? That's one double-cross too many for my mind to encompass. Guess I'll have to bring Gordon Duff back on my show and run it by him...

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Duluth Reader Demolishes 9/11 Commission Report!

 

The Duluth (MN) Reader says it's "The Best Paper Money Can't Buy - Locally Owned." Living up to its motto, the September 2nd Reader featured  a blockbuster story by Dr. Gary Kohls, "A Call for a New, Unbiased 9/11 Commission to Investigate the Controlled Demolition of the Three WTC Towers." Then just to show it wasn't a fluke, the September 9th, 2010 Reader included a 9/11 truth cover story by Jim Fetzer--this one entitled "Top Ten (x2) Reasons the 'Official Account' of 9/11 is Wrong."

An irate reader responded with the following letter to the editor:

Regarding: “A Call for a New, Unbiased 9/11 Commission to Investigate The Controlled Demolitions of the Three WTC Towers."
 
Dr. Kohls has completely blown his credibility regarding conspiracy theories. Granted that the “powers-that-be” could have foreseen that a few misguided Arabs would commandeer a few jet planes and attack the US of A. (were those Arabs employed by our own government?) Having that foresight our government had demolition explosives planted for that eventuality. But the big problem is the question, “where have the bodies of those that planted the explosives been buried?” Why has nobody missed those demolition experts? They certainly would not have been allowed to live to tell about it. (as per all the mystery novels) We have not seen hide nor hair of executed demolition experts.
 
Nor has anyone leaked any important information about this.
 
It just doesn’t make sense. Something must be wrong with this story of governmental perfidy. [Since we supposedly sold the thermite-sectioned iron beams to Asia with their tell-tale evidence perhaps the Asians will hold that evidence over our head for later negotiations with our government. Who knows?]
 
Now you know this also throws a completely different light on Dr. Kohls’ view of the big pharmaceutical companies who insist on pouring their expensive chemicals into innocent unsuspecting Americans. That may not be a real conspiracy either – we just don’t know at this point. (you know most of those chemicals actually do work as advertised).

Charles Longstreth, M.D.
Duluth



I responded:


To the Reader,

In a recent issue Dr. Charles Longstreth attacks Dr. Gary Kohls' call for a real investigation into the apparent controlled demolitions of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers. Longstreth makes several errors. First, he assumes that Arabs actually hijacked planes on 9/11. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence that any of the 19 patsies, or any Arabs for that matter, were even on the planes, and overwhelming evidence that they were not--including reliable reports of ten of them turning up alive after 9/11. Additionally, the clocked speed of the WTC attack planes through the thick sea-level atmosphere -- almost 600 miles per hour in the case of the alleged Flight 175 -- proves they were not manually-hijacked Boeing passenger planes, which would have been almost certainly ripped apart, and certainly uncontrollable, at such speeds and altitudes. (Source: Pilots for 9/11 Truth.)

Second, Longstreth claims that "nobody has leaked any important information" about the 9/11 false-flag operation. In fact, there is a long list of important 9/11 whistleblowers including Sibel "Feith and Perle financed 9/11" Edmonds, Minnesota's own Colleen Rowley, FEMA videographer Kurt Sonnenfeld, and assassinated WTC-7 whistleblower Barry Jennings

Third, Longstreth claims that if the three WTC skyscrapers came down in controlled demolitions, the demolition experts responsible would have been murdered, and we would have heard about it. He ignores the distinction between civilian and military demolitions experts, and the fact that the latter category includes people whose expertise is kept secret, and who are chosen and trained for keeping secrets. Additionally, any Israelis involved in 9/11 would know that the truth could destroy their country, while the lie is crucial to its survival; they would therefore be highly motivated -- even beyond the usual material rewards and familial death threats -- to remain quiet.

Dr. Longstreth, please visit Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth's website. You will learn that the explosive destruction of all three WTC skyscrapers included ten exclusive features of controlled demolition. Unexploded chunks of nanothermite high-tech explosives have been found, in great quantities, in the dust of the World Trade Center, according to a peer-reviewed article in Chemical Engineering Journal. WTC controlled demolition is no longer conspiracy theory, it is conspiracy fact.

Kevin Barrett
Lone Rock, WI

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

New Alan Sabrosky Interview: 9/11 and Beyond

Dr. Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D. University of Michigan, former director of studies at the US Army War College) appeared on my show last spring and made news by explaining why he is certain that the Israeli Mossad was behind 9/11.

Dr. Alan Sabrosky was interviewed on Iranian TV (Sahar TV) on 9/11/2010. Thanks to Veterans Today and My Catbird Seat (where you can read Sabrosky's comprehensive article on 9/11 Treason, Betrayal, and Deceit) for breaking this story.

Part 1:



Part 2:



Part 3:

Monday, September 20, 2010

Jews Must Root Out Radical Jewish Extremists from their Communities

The Jewish-dominated corporate mainstream media often admonishes us that we Muslims have a duty to root out radical Muslim extremists from our communities.

The problem is, I don't know any radical Muslim extremists. All of the Muslims I know are kind, polite, timid souls who wouldn't hurt a fly. Oops, I take that back -- my irrepressible co-host on the Garden of Truth TV show, Abdullah Champeon, can be kind but is rarely polite or timid. It requires no stretch of the imagination to envision Abdullah harming a fly, though I am sure he would only do it in self defense.

My Jewish friends, however, all seem to know at least one or two radical Jewish extremists. An old friend of mine named Bob used to regale me with stories of his older brother, who emigrated to Israel in order to "kill Arabs" and apparently has achieved his aim. Bob's sister, he tells me, also harbors an over-the-top visceral hatred for Arabs and Muslims, and cheers their mass killing in the 9/11 wars as well as in Palestine.

Another Jewish friend, Steve, just told me yesterday how his brother rants "kill all the Muslims! Kill them all!" Needless to say, I didn't ask for an introduction. Steve adds that his brother, unfortunately, is not a rare exception in the American Jewish community.

I have met many hundreds of Muslims while living in Paris, San Francisco, Morocco, and the Midwest, and I have yet to meet one who wants to "kill all the Jews" in the way that Steve's brother, and presumably hundreds of thousands if not millions of other Jews, wants to "kill all the Muslims." Nor have I met a single Muslim who wants to emigrate to Palestine, or New York, or anywhere else in order to "kill Jews."

My conclusion is that it is Jews, not Muslims, who should be rooting out the radical extremists...not just Islamophobic judeo-nazis like Daniel Pipes, Michael Savage, David Horowitz, Pamela Geller, and so on, but especially those who, like Perle, Wolfowitz, Libby, Zelikow, Silverstein, and Netanyahu, seem to have orchestrated the false-flag 9/11 attack and the subsequent 9/11 wars -- which might also be called the "dupe Americans into killing Muslims for Israel" wars.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Michael Moore Endorses My "Build a Mega-Mosque ON Ground Zero" Project; Begins Fundraising!

Closet 9/11 truther Michael Moore, one of America's all-time great political filmmakers, has come out in favor of my "build a mega-mosque ON Ground Zero" proposal -- and started raising the construction money! (My proposal won Matt Taibbi's award for most obnoxious thing on the internet.)

In a recent article, Moore writes:

"I am opposed to the building of the 'mosque' two blocks from Ground Zero.
I want it built on Ground Zero..."

Like me, Michael Moore wants to see a mega-mosque with minaret(s) as high as the demolished Towers:
"...But to even have to assure people that 'it's not going to be mosque' is so offensive, I now wish they would just build a 111-story mosque there. That would be better than the lame and disgusting way the developer has left Ground Zero an empty hole until recently."

Then Moore drops a bombshell: "The remains of over 1,100 people still haven't been found." This little-known fact is, all by itself, proof positive that the Towers were destroyed with powerful explosives, which blasted human bodies, office furniture and equipment, filing cabinets, computers, concrete, and everything else except the buildings' steel frames into tiny solid fragments mixed into a sea of dust the consistency of talcum powder -- a six-inch "snowfall" that blanketed Manhattan. Had the Towers simply pancaked down due to gravity, the bodies of every victim, along with all of the office furniture and equipment, would have been found, smashed but basically intact, between the pancaked floors. Instead, there were no pancaked floors at Ground Zero, and only one filing cabinet-- out of many thousands -- was ever found


In short, the contents of the Towers had been pulverized. Nor were there any intact bodies, just tiny bone slivers and bits of flesh that had been blasted to smithereens and, in many cases, propelled hundreds of feet outward and upward to land on the streets and rooftops of neighboring buildings.

At the end of his article, Michael Moore says he will match the first $10,000 raised to help build the mosque he wants built on Ground Zero (though the Burlington Coat Factory site would be better than nothing).

Since Mike and I share a sense of humor and a predilection for political provocation, I think we'd do a great radio show together. Please write to Michael Moore (mike[at]michaelmoore[dot]com) and ask him to contact me (kbarrett[at]merr[dot]com) so I can book him on my radio show. You can mention that I don't mind that he stole my idea -- it's a great idea, after all -- but would appreciate the chance to discuss it with him on the radio!





Tuesday, September 14, 2010

September 11th 2010: Videos from Fighting Bob Fest and Peace Fest

Josh Harvey of Snowshoe Films interviews me at PeaceFest:



Eric Sayward of Wisconsin We Are Change Talks to Jesse Jackson About 9/11:

Monday, September 13, 2010

Sunday, September 12, 2010

9/11 truth OWNS Bobfest!

September 11th, 2010
Baraboo, WI

The top of the hierarchy that puts on Fighting Bob Fest -- Wisconsin's premiere left-progressive annual festival -- includes a few 9/11 gatekeepers. But on Saturday, September 11th, 2010, the gate was busted down and the sheep stormed boldly out of the pen, as Wisconsin's dedicated 9/11 activists managed to get their message out to the thousands of festival-goers...and discovered a sympathetic, responsive, and 9/11-truth-savvy audience.

A big 9/11 truth booth (complete with looping videos and mega-banners) was mobbed the whole day, thousands of 9/11 truth DVDs and AE911Truth brochures were given away, dozens of books were sold (I sold more than twenty of my own), gigantic truther banners were paraded around the festival grounds, and several teams of people wandered around and worked the crowd, talking to people and handing out DVDs and brochures. By the end of the day, the average BobFest participant was exposed to dozens of 9/11 truth messages. So despite the mixed attitudes of BobFest's organizers, who refused to invite any truther speakers, 9/11 truth became the most prominently visible issue at BobFest!

Truthers confronted/interviewed various celebrities including Jesse Jackson, Thom Hartmann (listen to his show right after mine every Tuesday on NoLiesRadio), and Greg Palast. I will be linking the videos here as soon as they are available.

Immediately after BobFest, an overflow crowd packed PeaceFest across the street to hear an uncensored speaking lineup, including yours truly (video forthcoming).

Congratulations to all the hardworking Wisconsin 9/11 activists who made this September 11th a day Fighting Bobfest will remember! Special kudos to the Wisconsin Coalition for 9/11 Truth, headed by Matt Naus and friends, who organized the booth and banners; to the Wisconsin and Oshkosh We Are Change activists who worked the crowd; to Bob "Dr. Peace" Reuschlein who organized PeaceFest; to Josh Harvey of Snowshoe Films who filmed PeaceFest.

This was my first year at Fighting Bob Fest, which typically conflicts with 9/11 anniversary events in NYC. I was pleasantly amazed at the overwhelmingly positive response to 9/11 truth from Wisconsin's progressive community, and had such a good time that I'll try to find a way to catch it again next year insha'allah (AND participate in the 10th anniversary events in New York). I've met wonderful 9/11 activists from all over the world, stayed in their homes, gotten to know them, and learned that 9/11 truth people are generally the best people in the world. But after witnessing the truther takeover of BobFest, I'm thinking that the best of the best are right here in Wisconsin.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

9/11 Truth Interview Goes Out to Hundreds of Millions!





"Like other free-to-air news channels, the reach for our show is into the hundreds of millions on the eleven different satellite systems but it is also on the most popular pay-platform SKY (SKY 515 news genre). The audience is global." -Nadine Khan, The Rattansi and Ridley Show

During the interview, I said that 9/11 was modeled on Pearl Harbor. Below are a few pages supporting that assertion, extracted from my book Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters.


* * *

Was 9/11 a "New Pearl Harbor"?

Was 9/11 a “New Pearl Harbor”? Many scholars believe that President Franklin D. Roosevelt lied about the alleged surprise attack on Pearl Harbor—and that the lie was a justifiable “noble lie.” Before Pearl Harbor, American public opinion was overwhelmingly against U.S. entry into the war. Pearl Harbor, some believe, made it possible for the U.S.A. to defeat Hitler. Did Roosevelt manipulate the Japanese with an eight-point plan to force Japan to strike first so as to enrage the American people and allow U.S. entry into the war? Did he know about the attack beforehand and intentionally fail to prevent it? Did he make it happen on purpose by way of the eight-point plan?58

Paul Wolfowitz, a student of Strauss and leading neocon geopolitical strategist, has long been fascinated by the immense strategic value of Pearl Harbor, which mobilized America for total war. Wolfowitz has exhibited a lifelong obsession with a remark by Albert Speer to the effect that if Germany had been blessed with a Pearl Harbor it would have won World War II.59

 If the official myth of the Pearl Harbor surprise attack is a lie, is it a noble lie? Wolfwitz, and the other cult followers of Leo Strauss, would undoubtedly say so.

The popular myth of the dastardly Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and the heroic American response, transformed Americans’ understanding of themselves and their role in the world. Before Pearl Harbor, Americans agreed that there should be no standing army, and that George Washington’s foreign policy of 33 neutrality, non-alignment, and non-involvment in foreign quarrels was the American way.60 That is why, on the eve of Pearl Harbor, 80% of Americans opposed entering World War II.

After Pearl Harbor, Americans accepted their new role as the world’s policeman (some would say the world’s biggest bully). A gigantic military-industrial complex mushroomed, and more noble lies were told to gain the people’s consent. The negligible military threat to the U.S. posed by the Soviet Union was wildly exaggerated in order to pump up the military budget, and the memory of the alleged sneak attack at Pearl Harbor fed Americans’ sense of vulnerability. In this way, an aggressive imperial strategy was made to appear defensive. While pretending to be a purely defensive power, the U.S. regularly threatened other nations with the use of nuclear weapons.61 It launched illegal, unconstitutional attacks on dozens of nations that posed no threat whatsoever, killing millions of innocent people in the process in what one scholar of U.S. empire, William Blum, has called “the American holocaust.”62

 The Pearl Harbor myth changed history. It turned the U.S.A. from a peace-loving nation into the world’s biggest and most aggressive military empire. How did it exert such immense power?

 To find out, the U.S. military hired anthropologist Bob Deutch, one of the world’s leading experts in using focus groups to understand and manipulate irrational popular beliefs. Deutch discovered that Pearl Harbor shattered Americans’ sense of invulnerability: “Because Japan disrupted America’s selfmythology of being invincible, the nation would never be forgiven in the irrational American sentiment.”63 Could those who hired Deutch have concluded that a new Pearl Harbor, blamed on Arab Muslims, could provide the kind of “searing or moulding event” that would convince the American public to mobilize for wars on behalf of oil and Israel?

 Deutch discovered that at the deep psychological level, the American public, like members of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang, engages in aggression as a defense against a sense of vulnerability and loss: “They are protecting themselves. That’s what their core story is about. Images are created to defend loss, not maximize gain.”64

Another U.S. military psychological expert, S.L.A. Marshall, discovered just how fundamentally defensive and non-aggressive human nature really is, and how powerfully people must be psychologically manipulated if they are to go to war. After an exhaustive study of that vast majority U.S. infantrymen and airmen who, during World War II, covertly refused to kill, Marshall wrote that “the average and healthy individual...has such an inner and usually unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition take life if it is possible to turn away from that responsibility...At the vital point (the soldier) becomes a conscientious objector.”65 Normal human beings only kill when under direct threat and extreme duress, as a fear-and-anger-inspired defensive response to an aggressor. To motivate a nation to engage in military aggression—mass killing abroad—the people must be brainwashed into believing that they are under attack.

Zbigniew Brezezinski, a leading U.S. foreign policy strategist, notes that the U.S. public’s attitude toward the “external projection of American power” is “ambivalent” and depends on the sort of fear and vulnerability awakened by Pearl Harbor: “The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”66 Brezezinski’s use of the term “shock effect” recalls the thesis of Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine.67 According to Klein, individuals and even whole societies can be forced to accept radical, unpleasant changes by way of sudden shocks engineered, or taken advantage of, by unscrupulous elites.

Brezezinski seemed to be calling for a shocking event like 9/11 and the War on Terror it spawned, when he wrote in 1997: “Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”68

 Hollywood, like Brezezinski, seemed to be preparing the American public for 9/11. The run-up to 9/11 saw a rash of patriotic, militaristic, apocalyptic films including the 135 million dollar flop, Pearl Harbor.69 Most American-made action films feature an American hero who is threatened by an evil foreigner, and whose self-defense unfolds into extreme aggression that the audience is 35 taught to accept as legitimate. A grossly disproportionate number of Hollywood’s evil foreigners are Arab or Muslim, including in pre-9/11 films.70 Is this because Hollywood was founded as, and remains, a Jewish enclave with a strong pro-Israeli bias? Or is it because 80% of the world’s sweet, easily-extracted oil lies under Arab and Muslim sand, even as an age of energy scarcity looms?71

Did 9/11 function as a “new Pearl Harbor” that mobilized Americans for a aggressive war, disguised as a defensive one, against Arab and Muslim countries? T.H. Meyer has called attention to Donald Rumsfeld’s bizarre Pearl Harbor propaganda campaign that had begun even before the Bush Administration took office.72 Rumsfeld spent 2000 and 2001 carrying around extra copies of Roberta Wohlstetter’s Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision, praising the book to the skies, and offering free copies to journalists. (Wohlstetter’s hawkish Zionist husband Albert, named in his obituary “the world’s most influential unknown figure of the past half century,” was Wolfowitz’s mentor and Richard Perle’s father-in-law.)73 Roberta Wohlstetter’s Pearl Harbor book, while it ostensibly supports the official myth that Pearl Harbor was a perfidious surprise attack, includes enough information to the contrary to enlighten the discerning reader to the unspeakable but implicitly acknowledged truth: The Roosevelt Administration provoked the attacks, knew they were coming, and left thousands of sailors in harm’s way as an offering to the gods of war. Wohlstetter’s book is a perfect illustration of neocon doublespeak: Tell a vivid, simplistic, emotionally-charged lie to the masses (“Perfidious surprise attack! Heroic purple-fury response!”) yet include as a subtle subtext the unspeakable truth that only the elite is smart enough to discern and strong enough to handle: Roosevelt sacrificed thousands of American lives to the greater good of getting the U.S. into the war.

Rumsfeld’s pre-9/11 Pearl Harbor precognitions were echoed on 9/11 itself. On Air Force One, as Bush flew from Florida to Nebraska, the event was already being framed as a new Pearl Harbor.74 Senator Chuck Hegel and Henry Kissinger quickly echoed the Pearl Harbor comparison. Brezezinski himself pronounced: “It (9/11) is more murderous even than Pearl Harbor, and the psychological impact is the same.”75 On the evening of September 11th, 2001, George W. Bush reportedly confided to his diary: “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.”76

 Before the nano-thermite-laden dust77 that was all that was left of the World Trade Center had cleared, the corporate media were echoing the Pearl Harbor meme. Time Magazine wrote: “What’s needed is a unified, unifying, Pearl Harbor sort of purple American fury—a ruthless indignation that doesn’t leak away in a week or two.”78 After 9/11 family members shamed a reluctant administration into finally mounting an official investigation, the 9/11 Commission told us that 9/11 was just like Pearl Harbor “except it wasn’t the Japanese, but it was al-Qaeda.”79

58 Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit (NY: Free Press, 1999).
59 Brian Bogart, radio interview, “The Dynamic Duo,” December 27, 2006 (www.
gcnlive.com).
60 George Washington, Farewell Address (www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.
htm).
61 Joseph Gerson, Empire and the Bomb: How the U.S. Uses Nuclear Weapons to
Dominate the World (London and Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, 2007).
62 William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World
War II (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2004).
63 Douglas Rushkoff, Coercion (NY: Penguin, 1999), 140.
64 Rushkoff, 141.
65 Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill
in War and Society (Boston, NY, Toronto, London: Little, Brown, 1995).
66 Zbigniew Brezezinksi, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its
Geostrategic Imperatives (NY: Penguin, 1997), 25.
67 Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (NY: Henry
Holt and Company, 2007).
68 Brezezinski, 211.
69 www.hollywood.com/news/detail/id/311906
70 Jack Shaheen, Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People (Northhampton,
MA: Interlink, 2001).
71 Matthew Simmons, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the
World Economy (Hoboken, NJ: 2005).
72 T.H. Meyer, Reality, Truth, and Evil (Forest Row, UK: Temple Lodge Publishing,
2005), 7.
73 Meyer, 68-69.
74 Meyer, 39.
75 Ibid.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Press Conferences: 1,200 Architects & Engineers Demand Congressional Response to Petition for New 9/11 Investigation!

1,200 Architects & Engineers Demand Congressional Response to Petition for New 9/11 Investigation!

2:00 EST Thursday 9/9/2010

Press Conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC hosted by Former US Senator Mike Gravel:

Live Webcast:
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/332-washington-dc-activities-action-alert-2.html

* * *

Here in Madison, Wisconsin, I will join Tom Spellman of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth at a press conference this Thursday, Sept. 9th, 11 a.m. in front of Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin's office, 10 East Doty St., in Madison. We intend to inform Congresswoman Baldwin that more than 1,200 professional architects and engineers are calling for a fair and impartial investigation of possible scientific fraud committed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in covering up the apparent controlled demolition of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11th, 2001. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are demanding that Congress respond to the evidence of controlled demolition that they have uncovered.

This event will join dozens of concurrent local press conferences held simultaneously around the world, including the main one at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

The press conference will last 15 to 20 minutes, after which participants will enter Congresswoman Baldwin's office and meet with her District Director, Kurt Finkelmeyer, who was kind enough to schedule the meeting.  You can read about Architects and Engineers' concurrent press conferences this September 9th here or at http://www.ae911truth.org
  
Check out the report and pictures of last February's press conference in the State Capitol.

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Am I Attracting Persecution by Using the Word "Jihad" ?

Why have I (and other voices of 9/11 truth) been stalked and persecuted -- not just by Fox and friends, but by people claiming to be part of the 9/11 truth movement?

My friend Ken Jenkins recently advised me that he agrees that I have been subjected to many unfair attacks, but he thinks that while I don't deserve the mistreatment, I "attract" it. He cited the Law of Attraction, a metaphysical doctrine suggesting we attract the reality that we experience. As an example of how I may be "attracting" persecution, he said that by using the word "jihad" in my book and website, I am putting out thoughts of "war" and "struggle."

Since I haven't really posted much about Islam during this Ramadhan, I'll use Ken's remarks as a springboard. Here is my response to him. 

Hi Ken,

Thank you for these thoughts! I agree completely with the "law of attraction" analysis, though I would describe it differently:   (1) creation is absolutely just (you reap what you sow), (2) ultimate justice, for human beings, is meted out in the afterlife, while only a portion of it is meted out in this life, and (3) God tests us as part of a soul-creating process. 

When someone tries to be good, just, and honest -- as in the story of Job -- God often allows evil humans and the evil spirits incarnated in them (along with just plain hard luck) to test that person. Such tests can help the person atone for any evil (s)he has done, forge a greater soul, and achieve a higher station in Paradise.  The prophets have always elicited visceral hatred from evil people (evil being a combination of ignorance and ill intent). The most notorious example in Islam is the case of Abu Lahab, the "father of flame," who viciously persecuted the Prophet Muhammad (peace upon him) and his followers.    Closer to our time, JFK was murdered because he had "turned toward peace" (James Douglass), and RFK, MLK and Malcolm were killed because they sought justice. The killers were driven by the same evil that persecuted and sometimes killed the prophets.  Likewise, the perpetrators of 9/11, who are psychopaths and Satanists bent on establishing a global regime of evil, targeted Islam--especially those Muslims who stand up and fight back against evil and aggression--in order to try to defeat the good and impose evil.

Until Jesus (Issa) returns, good people will have to defend themselves from evil, sometimes with violence, if the earth is not to become a hell-world completely dominated by evil. This is implicit in the message of the last Prophet, which supplanted the pacifist message of Jesus, peace upon them both. Jesus's message of complete pacifism, while the ideal, did not work out in practice, because (in New Age terms) this planet's vibrational level was not high enough. Thus "Christians" were absorbed by Rome and became among the world's worst butchers and greed-heads, despite Jesus's commandment of absolute pacifism and poverty. Islam was then decreed by God as the correct message and way of life to preserve the teachings of the Prophets during a period when the good would have to actively defend itself from evil.

The word jihad, as I hope you realize, first means "struggle to be a better person" (the greater jihad), and secondarily "struggle to defend good against evil -- and the community of the (relatively) good, including the Muslim community, against any evil that threatens it." Sometimes, unfortunately, this requires armed struggle. Virtually everyone accepts the principle of armed struggle against aggressors, so this is hardly a Muslim peculiarity! Institutional Christianity, in defiance of its founding prophet, holds almost exactly the same just war doctrine as Islam. If you, personally, would not use lethal force in order to stop someone from killing or enslaving you or your loved ones, you are one of the tiny minority that doesn't share this doctrine, and may God bless you for it! (And may God preserve us from the hell-world that would result if all good people followed your example, allowing the psychopaths to rule without any resistance.)

Thus "jihad" is a crucially important, and profoundly GOOD, religious concept. Anyone who has a negative impression of this word is an ignorant Islamophobe, just as anyone who hates a specific Christian, Jewish, or Buddhist religious concept would be bigoted against those religions. By embracing the word "jihad" -- just like by standing up for 9/11 truth -- I am doing the right thing, and thereby incurring the wrath of the evil and ignorant.

So if you're saying I'm attracting unusual levels of evil by striving to be unusually good, I would take that as a compliment, and a sign that I am at least making an effort to walk in the footsteps of the prophets. I invite you to join me. (By standing firmly for truth, you're already halfway there!)

Kevin

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

See You at FIGHTING BOB FEST and PEACE FEST on Saturday, September 11th!


On Saturday, September 11th, the Wisconsin Coalition for 9/11 Truth will have a booth at Fighting Bob Fest, the Midwest's biggest "progressive" celebration. I will be hanging out at the booth chatting, taking questions and debating any who dare. See you there! http://www.fightingbobfest.org/

Later on the 11th, I will be speaking at Peace Fest II in Baraboo, Wisconsin, right across the street from Fighting Bob Fest. Free Snacks! Music @ 5pm and 6pm: Speakers@5:15pm.  At: Thunderbird Lanes (air conditioned!), Across Hwy 33 from Fairgrounds & M&I Bank, 1117 8th St.,  Baraboo,  second building East of Washington Ave. Below is the announcement from Bob "Dr. Peace" Reuschlein.

PEACE FEST II

September 11, 2010 after Bob Fest in Baraboo

Host: Dr. Bob Reuschlein (Creator: Peace Economics 1986)

Music @ 5pm and 6pm: Speakers@5:15pm: 

Bob Reuschlein "Peace Economics"

Buzz Davis "War Criminals"

Kevin Barrett "War Justification Incidents"

Jo Ann Oravec "Bullying"

Open Mike@6:15pm  Five Minutes Each

FREE EVENT  5-7:30pm

Free Snacks!

At: Thunderbird Lanes (air conditioned!)

Across Hwy 33 from Fairgrounds & M&I Bank

1117 8th St., Baraboo,  second building East of Washington Ave.


Empire leads to ruin, peace leads to prosperity.

For More Info:  608-230-6640; earlwal(at)chorus.net

Dr. Peace website: www.realeconomy.com

Location Website: www.ThunderbirdBaraboo.com

* * *

 This video frame was taken at last year's Fighting Bob Fest. It shows Allen Ruff, the nastiest bully on the Madison activism scene, sucker-punching Mike Delaney because Allen didn't like Mike's "Israel Did 9/11" T-shirt.  (Allen Ruff fancies himself a peace activist, but this isn't the first time he has assaulted someone he didn't agree with.)