If you like this blog

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

Monday, February 28, 2011

Wisconsin Governor admits to plotting false-flag terror; media averts eyes

Did you know that the Governor of Wisconsin has admitted that he and his advisors "thought about" launching a false-flag terror attack against the people of Wisconsin - and decided not to only because he wasn't sure it would achieve his political objectives?

False-flag terror is the oldest and arguably most powerful trick in the book of governments. By stirring up trouble and spreading fear, rulers trick the people into begging them - the rulers - for security at any price. Whether you are a state governor or the President of the United States or a tinpot dictator like Mubarak, the best way to augment your power is to hire special ops professionals to dress up as "terrorists" and perpetrate violence. You can then blame the violence on your political enemies, destroy those enemies, consolidate power, and rule unopposed.

Governor Scott Walker isn't the first Western ruler to admit to plotting - or perpetrating - false-flag terror. The list of known, suspected, or admitted false-flag attacks is so long that those who study the subject often end up suspecting that the vast majority of terrorist attacks blamed on anti-government rebels are in fact the work of the rulers themselves. (If you're skeptical, google: Operation Gladio, Operation Northwoods, and Lavon Affair.)

And yet our mainstream media continues to portray "terrorism" as the work of rebels, not governments. The very phrase "false-flag terror" is rarely mentioned, and anyone who uses it is likely to be labeled a "conspiracy theorist."

Let's look more closely at Governor Walker's planned false-flag attack against the people of Wisconsin. In a conversation with a man he believed was billionaire campaign contributor David Koch, Walker was asked whether he had thought about planting "troublemakers" in the crowd. Walker responded: "The only problem with that ... we thought about that... My only fear would be is if there was a ruckus caused that that would scare the public into thinking maybe the governor has got to settle to avoid all these problems."

In this context, "troublemakers" can only mean instigators of violence, and "ruckus" can only mean violence. Obviously those Walker and his advisers considered sending in to instigate violence would not advertise themselves as Walker supporters, but would instead pretend to be out-of-control anti-Walker protesters. This false-flag violence would create fear (terror) in the public mind, allowing Walker to crack down on the real protesters with the approval of the public. In short, Walker considered a classic false-flag terror operation.

So why didn't Walker send in goons disguised as left-wing protesters to break windows, attack police and security guards, maybe even set off a bomb or fire a gun? Because, as Nixon used to say, "it would be wrong"? No - Walker was afraid that the violence would be politically counterproductive, as happened after the 2004 Madrid bombing, when Spanish voters punished the government that had participated in a huge false-flag terror attack by voting it into oblivion.

And that is the one good thing about false-flag terrorism: once the public understands how it works, it loses its effectiveness. Widespread public doubts about the official version of 9/11 have created an atmosphere in which would-be despots like Scott Walker cannot be sure that the public will buy their lies.

Meanwhile, it would be highly instructive - and beneficial in preventing future false-flag terror - if Madison Police Chief Noble Wray could convince the District Attorney to launch an investigation of Walker and his advisors' apparent conspiracy to commit assault. And it would be even more instructive and beneficial if the corporate media would finally tell it like it is and publish headlines like "Walker Under Investigation in False-Flag Terror Plot."
* * *
[For a concise, readable, and thoroughly-documented introduction to the subject of false-flag terror in the post-9/11 world, check out my book Questioning the War on Terror.  For a copy, send $15 to: Khadir Press, POB 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556]

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Seminar in REVOLUTION coming to Madison, WI this Sunday!

Thursday, Feb. 24th - For Immediate Release

Contact: Kevin Barrett, kbarrett(at)merr(dot)com
Eric Sayward, We Are Change-Wisconsin
Sander Hicks (available for interviews) http://www.SanderHicks.com

Truth Party founder Sander Hicks to join Wisconsin Revolution seminar this Sunday, Feb. 27th!

Is the unrest in Europe, the revolutions in the Arab world, and now the Wisconsin Revolution the beginning of a global "truth revolution" sparked by the new digital media exposing previously untouchable issues? Legendary New York City publisher, bookstore owner, author and activist Sander Hicks will lead a seminar on "Digital-Age Revolution: DIY Media, Red Pill Issues" this Sunday, February 27th, 1 to 3 pm at the Wil-Mar Center, 953 Jennifer St. in Madison, WI.

As the controlled corporate media cheerleads for "shock doctrine" austerity measures like those Hosni Mubarak inflicted on Egypt and Scott Walker wants to inflict on Wisconsin, people are  informing themselves and organizing revolutions through the new digital media. Can the new media - pushing "red-pill" issues exposing the ruling regimes' corporate media propaganda matrix as an Orwellian web of deception - jump-start the first truly global revolution in history?

Seminar participants include:

Eric Sayward, We Are Change - Wisconsin: http://www.WisChange.org  We Are Change, with over 100 chapters worldwide, pioneered the new youtube style of in-your-face digital activism (whose latest example is the Daily Beast's phone call hoax to Scott Walker).

Phil Zimmerman, founder, http://www.WisconsinRepublic.org; coordinator, Christians for 9/11 Truth.

Kevin Barrett, Ph.D. Arabic/Islamic Studies; academic freedom fighter and talk radio host, http://www.TruthJihad.com

and...

THE TRUTH PARTY presents-

...Sander Hicks, discussing his 10 years of direct action against the 9/11 cover-up: his confrontations with FBI, Giuliani, Spitzer, and Cheney. He will report on his investigations into the death of 9/11 whistle-blower Dr. David Graham, and the cover-up of Operation Able Danger.

Hicks will lead a discussion about the formation of “The Truth Party.” The Truth Party is all about nonviolence as the new US foreign policy, true government transparency, an empowering economics, public interest venture capital, and a return to a USA based on the Bill of Rights. We will end the evening with a democratic appointment of local Truth Party representatives, in your area. A quick floor vote from all attendees will create a local Truth Party presence here in Madison, Wisconsin - home of the Wisconsin Revolution.

Please join us for the seminar, followed by a visit to a café in the Willy St. neighborhood...and perhaps a visit to the state capitol?  Don't let us start the revolution without you!

Sunday, February 27th, 1 to 3 pm at the Wil-Mar Center, 953 Jennifer St. in Madison, WI.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

They Hate Our Meaning: Explaining the West's Suicidal Embrace of Islamophobia

"Why don't we hang ourselves?"  "With what?"  -Waiting for Godot 

"The demonstrators filling the streets in Cairo, Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, Manama, Sana and Tehran give every indication of dreaming dreams not entirely dissimilar from our own. Rather than rejecting modernity, as radical Islamists such as Osama bin Laden have urged, these protesters want a bigger slice of what modernity has to offer. Though not guaranteeing harmonious coexistence, this convergence of aspirations does suggest that a cosmic clash of civilizations is avoidable."  - Andrew Bacevich

Bacevich, a conservative turned critic of American imperial folly, offers instructive insight into the limits of the West's empathetic imagination. What we have here is failure to communicate, due to the West's grotesque inability to at least entertain the perspective of the Other.

Consider his new op-ed entitled They're doing it without us: Rendering a decade of U.S. policy irrelevant, the people of the Middle East are transforming the region themselves. The title, which aptly expresses his thesis, has some merit. Unfortunately, Bacevich is unable to imagine even the possibility that people in the Middle East may have different values and aspirations for transformation than he does.

Remember George W. Bush's hilariously absurd statement, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" ?  That statement, as I have explained to Composition students, is a classic example of the fallacy known as the false dilemma or false dichotomy. (Obviously there must be more potential choices available than either being with Bush's crowd, or being with "the terrorists" - especially since the two categories are identical!)

Bacevich serves up a warmed-over version of the same false dichotomy. According to him, the people of the Middle East face a stark choice between "rejecting modernity, as radical Islamists such as Osama bin Laden have urged," or pursuing "a bigger slice of what modernity has to offer." In other words, they must be the same as us - or we will have to wipe them out in an allegedly unavoidable "cosmic clash of civilizations."

Bacevich approves of "the Muslim masses demanding political freedom and economic opportunity" but is hostile toward "radical Islamists." This false dichotomy has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality of the Muslim-majority lands, where the vast majority of people want political freedom AND shariah-based law, economic opportunity AND an Islamic caliphate, technological advancement AND the rebirth of a genuinely Islamic civilization. The Muslim majority insists that all US military bases be removed from Islamic lands, and roughly half of Muslims polled - including more than eight in ten Egyptians - approve of attacks on US troops and military facilities as a means toward that end, just as Americans would support the resistance if their own lands were occupied. (Undoubtedly even more approve of military resistance against the Zionist genoicide of the Palestinians.) Yet Muslims oppose attacks on civilians even more strongly than Western non-Muslims do, and agree that it is a good thing that "the world is becoming more connected through greater economic trade and faster communication." Clearly, the Muslim majority wants their restored Islamic caliphate, presiding over a Zionist-free Middle East, to coexist on an equal basis with, rather than war against, the peoples of other civilizations. (See poll data here.)

The whole notion that "radical Islamists" are "at war with modernity" and "hate our freedoms" has it backwards. In the Islamic world, the people who have no use for modernity and democracy are the Sufis - the real ones, not the Psufis like the pself-appointed pshaykh Imam Rauf. The Sufis love freedom - real, inner freedom - not its political simulacrum. (Check out this manifesto.) The so-called Islamists (including the late, falsely-accused Bin Laden) like the majority of Muslims, generally view modernity and democracy positively - and any reservations they have could be characterized as ambivalence, not loathing. They want to keep a large part of democracy - the part that is compatible with Islam - and leave the rest.

Why won't even the anti-imperialist Bacevich let Muslims be Muslims? Why can so few Americans imagine allowing Islamic civilization to put itself back together, Humpty-Dumpty like, after being shattered by genocidal wars of European imperial-colonial aggression? As we Muslims ask, every time we hear about sex-torture gulags and drone attacks on wedding parties and millions murdered in wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan and the other ten million facets of Islamophobic hysteria: Why do they hate us?

The short answer: They hate our meaning.

Western civilization is dying, as Samuel Beckett well knew, because there is no longer any shared system of meaning holding it together. Bacevich smiles on "the Muslim masses demanding political freedom and economic opportunity" because it sounds so much like America's closest thing to a shared system of meaning: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of (material) happiness."

But life and liberty to what end? And what exactly is "happiness"? These clichés were adequate two hundred years ago, when vast material riches of new continents awaited plunder, and a measureless wealth of fossil fuel energy awaited exploitation. For termites confronting a rotting tree, or maggots gifted with an elephant's corpse, the meaning of life is simple: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - which is another way of saying, "Let's eat!"

Today, as Richard Heinberg puts it, the party's over. The "let's eat" philosophy of life will no longer even fill stomachs, much less satisfy people hungry for meaning. Most Westerners are at the end of the road: having surpassed and discarded modernity, post-modernity, and even post-post-modernity, we have lost faith in nihlism - while only a few of us (thus far) have taken the next logical step and embraced Islam, the most coherent, robust, and promising meaning-system on earth.

Religions, after all, are THE time-tested meaning systems. That is why the Constitution of the United States of America, written by Deists who were not themselves traditionally religious, privileges freedom of religion; and it is why federal, state and local governments offer churches tax breaks. A shared system of meaning, not energy or farmland or even human labor, is the ultimate national resource.

The West's elite jettisoned Christianity more than a century ago (see A.N. Wilson, God's Funeral). Can this particular Humpty-Dumpty be put back together? Probably not; it is hard to imagine the West recanting its current post-Christian phase and reviving itself as a specifically Christian civilization.

Islamophobia, then, is the malaise of a dying Western civilization venting its self-hatred by spewing the projections of its own inadequacies in the general direction of the Other. Bacevich knows the American experiment is in a terminal phase of decline; he sees Islam ascending as a time-tested system of meaning uniting 1.5 billion people (who happen to live over 80% of the world's best remaining energy resources); and he reacts with fear and aggression, both based in jealousy. Bereft of any viable shared system of meaning of his own, the Islamophobe tries to fill the void with hatred of those whose lives are so much richer than his.

If Bacevich, and other American pundits, were free from such ressentiment, they would be happy at the prospect of a renewal of Islamic civilization, and encourage its political expression: the rise of an Islamic caliphate capable of defending its own people and resources.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Saturday, February 19, 2011

A Call to Revolution

I just sent this press release to hundreds of media outlets and more than three thousand individuals in Wisconsin. Subject header: He's BAA-AAAAACK!  Walker returns; local candidates call for revolution!       
                       -KB

 

Contact: Eric Sayward (toll-free)  888-293-5019
Kevin Barrett kbarrett(at)merr(dot)com 
For Immediate Release
Saturday, January 29th, 2010


Breaking news: After 4 days of protest, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's helicopter arrived at the Volk Field (http://www.volkfield.ang.af.mil/) Friday at 7:36 PM CST. Military sources say that he has plans to stay for the weekend and will presumably try to sneak into the capitol. This is the time for protesters to intensify our efforts!

Congressional candidates, We Are Change Wisconsin call on Americans to join Egyptian, Tunisian revolutions

While people all over the world are expressing solidarity with protesters in Egypt, some Americans are suggesting that their own country needs a revolution too.

"The USA is no longer a democracy," said Eric Sayward, independent 2010 congressional candidate and coordinator of We Are Change Wisconsin. "While the good news is that President Obama is not a dictator-for-life like Mubarak, the bad news is that the President, Congress and the courts - the official three branches of government - have been eclipsed by a secret government, a shadowy plutocracy of bankers, warriors, technocrats and covert operators who are not answerable to We the People. This shadow government, sometimes referred to as the New World Order, needs to be overthrown in a second American Revolution. And Wisconsin, with its two-bit Mubarak clone Scott Walker as self-appointed generalissimo, would be a great place to start!"

Sayward and Kevin Barrett, 2008 3rd District congressional candidate, called for Wisconsinites to plan for long-term protests and a general strike, and for Americans to begin planning to occupy Washington D.C. this summer. Together they proposed: "We need millions of Americans to descend on the nation's capital, pitch their tents on the White House lawn, and refuse to leave until the President declares a state of emergency, arrests all of the major fractional-reserve bankers for fraud, seizes the assets of the 100 largest banks, and presents a plan to repatriate those proceeds of crime to We the People." Barrett explained that if the DEA can seize the assets of drug dealers, the Treasury and Justice Departments can and must seize the assets of criminal bankers and investment houses.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has so far refused to comment on Sayward and Barrett's revolutionary proposal.

* * *

We Are Change incites Wisconsin revolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uypRYWGJGQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40H_Vr_ouB8

* * *

Kevin Barrett and Eric Sayward will join New York City publishing legend Sander Hicks and others at a seminar on "Digital-Age Revolution: DIY Media, Red Pill Issues" on Sunday, February 27th, 1 to 3 pm at the Wil-Mar Center, 953 Jennifer St.   (Join us for neighborhood café-hopping and revolution-inciting with Sander after the event!)

Eric Sayward
http://www.WisChange.org

Kevin Barrett
http://www.truthjihad.com
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters: http://www.questioningthewaronterror.com

Friday, February 18, 2011

Mossad agent Mike Harari implicated in Bali bombing, 9/11 - check out his false passports!

 Moshe Ivgy played Mossad agent Mike Harari in Steven Spielberg's Munich (2005)


Did Steven Spielberg turn the man who organized the Bali hotel bombing - and the mass slaughter of 9/11 -  into a Hollywood hero?

Spielberg's 2005 film Munich follows the exploits of Mossad agent Mike Harari (played by Moshe Ivgy) as he attempts to track down and kill the Black September guerrillas who organized the kidnapping of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972.

According to former Soviet nuclear weapons specialist Dmitri Khalezov, the real-life Mike Harari befriended him while the two were living in Thailand in 2001, effectively admitted to organizing 9/11,  then later tried to set Khalezov up to take the rap for 9/11-related crimes. (For details, check out my latest, two-hour interview with Khalezov and Gordon Duff which will soon be archived here; or my earlier interviews with Duff and Khalezov; or Khalezov's book.)

According to Khalezov, Mike Harari was arrested by Thai police for organizing the Bali hotel bombing, which Khalezov, like Australian journalist Joe Viallis (who was allegedly murdered for his trouble) says was done with a Mossad micro-nuke. Khalezov says Harari was arrested under the name Hadji Mohamed Husseini. Below are Khalezov's pictures of Mike Harari and his Thai "concubine," copies of the false passports Harari used (which Khalezov obtained from Thai police records of Harari's/"Husseini's" arrest), and a disputed TV image of a much younger Harari.

Harari's arrest

Harari's concubine

Harari's Guinean diplomatic passport (with his handwritten note)


Harari's passport

 Alleged TV image of a younger Harari (disputed by Khalezov)


Dmitri Khalezov responds to a questioner about why the TV image above doesn't look like Khalezov's Harari:

I don't think that there are could be a lot of photos with Mike Harari, especially "well known" ones. This guy is not so stupid, actually. What is known to me (also from him personally, but also from other
serious people) that in 1990 (well before the Internet became widely used) the Israeli Government in the most official manner kindly requested all mass media outlets all over the world to surrender all pictures of Mike Harari to the Israeli state (citing some plausible reasons and supporting the request with some cash, of course), and not to keep any copies of them. And after that successful operation Harari was more than careful not to allow anyone to have his pictures. I am actually quite a rare person who managed to obtain a couple of his real photos. In 2005 (after I was released from prison) I attempted to find some pictures of Mike Harari in his younger age desperately searching the Internet. I was not able to find any. And I repeated these searches at least twice a year. At one moment I noticed that one of the old picture with Noriega has appeared, but I am not quite sure if it is really genuine and not a part of the Mossad pre-emptive disinformation game. But when it comes to the picture of him on the TV-screen this one was not available I guess till very recent. And the fact of its appearance could be counted as a disinfo operation as well. To be honest with you I have never seen Harari before 2001 and I have no clue how he looked like before, since I have never seen his previous pictures either, but only saw his character portrayed by various actors in various movies (most importantly - by a Soviet-Georgian actor Vakhtang Kikabidze in the famous KGB-sponsored serial "TASS was authorized to declare"). That is why I simply have no chance to compare his former pictures with the new ones due to the total absence of the former (thanks to the careful policy of the Mossad described above). That is why to claim that there are "well known pictures of Mike Harari" is a bit bold claim, in my humble opinion. If such "well known pictures" of him do exist, they are certainly not in the wilderness of the Internet, but exclusively inside secret files of a few lucky secret-services.

All I could say that the guy I have a picture of is indeed Mike Harari, simply because it can't be anyone else. Mike Harari is such a unique person, with such a unique biography, such a unique character, and
variety of other unique personal features, that you can't simply find any other man that could pass for him and to perfectly match all Harari's actual features (including his ability to assassinate American colonels in the Philippines and his ability to invite an Israeli Ambassadors to his apartment for a drink, for example). How many Israeli people do you actually know who are about ~1927 year of birth, know perfect French, English, reasonable Spanish, recently arrived from the Philippines to Bangkok (because of the murder committed there against an American colonel), leaves in the compound guarded by the Israeli security, has penchant for diplomatic passports, claims to be the best friend of Khun Sa, Cao Ky, Noriega and Bush Senior, and also invites the local Israeli Ambassador to visit him in his apartment? If it is not Mike Harari, then who it is? That is why you don't have to doubt - the man I knew in Bangkok in 2001-2003 is Mike Harari and no one else. It is not 100%, it is 101%. And the photo I have is of that man. But you have to be prepared - the Mossad (and the French alike, and I guess the CIA as well) will deny it of course. And will plant various "innocently looking" [dis]info that will cast doubt on what I claim. So, don't be surprised if you see something like this.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Kevin Ryan's mistake

Recently, two of my 9/11 truth friends and colleagues have come under attack from within the 9/11 truth movement. I responded to Erik Larson's attack on Dr. David Ray Griffin in my previous post. Today, I will consider the painful case of one friend's attack on another.


Kevin Ryan doesn't make a whole lot of mistakes.
I know. I debated him once.

Originally, Kevin R. and I were supposed to debate faculty members at the University of Michigan. Kevin Ryan would argue against the NIST Report on the destruction of the Twin Towers, which would be defended by one or more scientists or engineers from the University of Michigan. Then I would argue against the 9/11 Commission Report, which would be defended by one or more law, history, humanities or political science professors.

Unfortunately, not one of the more than 1,000 University of Michigan professors we invited was willing to defend either official report on the most important event of the century.

So Kevin Ryan and I ended up debating each other. I opposed Kevin R. and defended NIST, while Kevin R. opposed me by defending the 9/11 Commission.

Even in a mock debate like this, Kevin Ryan was a fierce opponent. While he is normally a gentle, mild-mannered Buddhist, Kevin's pugnacious Irish heritage rises to the surface when he hears what sounds to him like BS.  So when I attempted to defend the NIST report as best I could, by raising what I knew to be weak arguments but presenting them as convincingly as possible, Kevin actually got annoyed!

But that's nothing compared to his annoyance at Jim Fetzer. As I recently wrote:

Investigative journalist Robert Parry's vapid attack on the 9/11 truth movement has elicited spirited responses from Jim Fetzer and Kevin Ryan. Ryan's response to Parry is even better than Fetzer's. But Ryan follows his response to Parry with an attack on Fetzer implicitly accusing Fetzer of being a cointelpro-style disinformation agent. (Fetzer responds here.)

Ryan's accusation of Fetzer may not be quite as ridiculous as Erik Larson's recent "David Ray Griffin is disinfo" howler. But it's pretty goofy.

If you're going to accuse someone of being a paid agent working to obstruct justice and cover up the worst mass murder in US history,  you'd better have some strong evidence. What evidence does Ryan offer?

First, he makes the hilariously absurd claim that Fetzer's article rebutting Robert Parry contains two typos, and those typos must therefore be part of Fetzer's "continued efforts to spread false information." Thomas Pynchon couldn't have invented a better example of the paranoid method of literary criticism.

Ryan accuses Fetzer of "shameful, self-aggrandizing theft and falsehood" because Fetzer has referred to the 9/11 truth movement's collective research as "our research." In fact, nobody in the 9/11 truth movement has individually contributed more than a small fraction of the total research - yet why shouldn't we talk about our research when we are speaking as members of the 9/11 truth movement and researchers? Jim Fetzer, like David Ray Griffin, may be doing mainly secondary rather than primary research, but that is still research, and both are entitled to speak of "our" research in presenting selected findings of the 9/11 truth movement.

Ryan claims Fetzer makes "wild assertions" such as: "...every claim the government has made about 9/11 is false." In fact, what Fetzer actually said was that "virtually every claim the government has made about 9/11 is false." By removing the word "virtually," Ryan misrepresents what Fetzer said to make it look like a "wild assertion." This is deceptive at best, potentially libelous at worst. (Remember, this is supposed to be evidence that Fetzer is a treasonous, murder-assisting disinfo agent.)

Ryan then quotes Fetzer's letter to potential members of the new (in 2006) group Scholars for 9/11 Truth: “Steve Jones and I would like to invite you to join us as members of a new society.” Ryan makes it sound as if Fetzer invented a false association with Jones, which is not true. The two were co-chairs of Scholars, by mutual agreement.

Ryan claims that Fetzer's contributions to the JFK research community were "dubious." In fact, the JFK research community, like the 9/11 truth movement, is not very cohesive; but Fetzer's contributions to it are generally viewed as extremely important, and Fetzer is widely regarded as a leading scholar in the field by such experts as James Douglass, the author of the best generalist book on the subject - as Douglass told me when his book came out.

Ryan asserts: "Less than one year (after founding Scholars for 9/11 Truth), just before the 5th anniversary of the attacks when mainstream media attention was at its peak, Fetzer began speaking publicly about space beams destroying the WTC and other such nonsense."

In fact, it is Ryan's assertion that is nonsense - maybe even libelous nonsense. First, Fetzer has never used the term "space beams." That is an invention of his opponents, who make their own arguments look weak when they stoop to using such pejorative language and falsely attributing it to Fetzer.

More importantly, Ryan's claim that Fetzer's unfortunate interest in Directed Energy Weapons was timed "just before the 5th anniversary of the attacks" is wrong. In reality, Wood and Reynolds first published the DEW paper that enthralled Fetzer on October 17th, 2006, and Fetzer's infatuation with Wood's DEW hypothesis began at least a few weeks later. Fetzer was actually a huge PR plus to the 9/11 truth movement, and universally regarded as such, throughout the summer of 2006, based on such performances as his evisceration of Oliver North on Fox TV in June. In October 2006, shortly before he went gaga for Judy Wood and DEW, Fetzer did another brilliant job on Hannity and Colmes. (I cannot imagine Ryan, Jones, Gage, Griffin, etc. despite their merits as a researchers and spokespeople, performing this well on national TV; they all lack the aggressiveness that serves Fetzer so well in this kind of situation, but which may work against him in others.)

Ryan writes: "False information like these claims (of DEW demolition) did, however, turn many serious people away from 9/11 truth." But he gives no evidence for this. Names, please? One very serious person who was turned toward 9/11 truth, or at least not turned away, by these claims, was Bob Fitrakis, an esteemed political science professor and one of the Midwest's leading alternative journalists for decades. Fitrakis, who has investigated the Pentagon's secret development of exotic weaponry including DEW, came to Fetzer's Madison 9/11 Conference and studied 9/11 more closely in part due to the presence of advocates of the DEW hypothesis there.

Citing the non-evidence, half-truths and outright lies I have cataloged above, Ryan writes: "The evidence we have suggests that Fetzer and his colleagues took the opportunity of the heightened mainstream media coverage around the 5th anniversary of 9/11 to engage in an evil parlor game of disruption, similar to the COINTELPRO operations of the past and the kind of 'cognitive infiltration' supported by members of the Obama Administration."

Since Fetzer had never even heard of the DEW hypothesis until about November 1st, 2006, and no allegations of him being anything but a PR plus for the movement prior to that time have ever been made as far as I am aware of - and since the "evidence" Ryan has presented does not even offer the faintest iota of suspicion that Fetzer is taking money to cover up mass murder - the above sentence is not just wildly defamatory, but completely absurd.

Ryan quotes Fetzer waxing enthusiastic ("ho ho ho, Judy!") about DEW on the radio. While this was not exactly Fetzer's best moment, anyone who engages in thousands of hours of spontaneous conversation on the radio is going to occasionally say stupid things, including things that sound considerably stupider in print than they did when spoken. But the bottom line here is that Fetzer's maniacal enthusiasm for the work of Judy Wood, which would have to have been feigned if he were cointelpro, was unfortunately quite genuine, as I can testify from personal experience; how such over-enthusiasm could be construed as evidence for conspiracy to cover up high treason and mass murder is something that perhaps Kevin Ryan can explain.

Ryan next passes on a claim that a Fetzer paper about information theory, entitled "Information: Does It Have to Be True?" suggests that "spreading and using false information...is perfectly fine and acceptable." Here Ryan and/or his source, a certain Floridi, have misconstrued a complex and highly specialized philosophical debate about information theory as a simple morality tale. Ryan claims that "all honest people" believe that "since information is data that changes what we do, only true information that helps us respond to our world accurately and effectively has value." While Plato might have agreed with this argument and banished the poets from his Republic, I can testify that many honest people believe that fiction (untrue information) can have tremendous value in myth, poetry and literature, among other areas. Be that as it may, Fetzer was actually arguing about the definition of the word information by claiming, along with the majority of information theorists, that it should include both the true and false varieties. He was not holding a brief for the false variety. Thus Fetzer is emphatically not "known to be an expert on the use and value of false information" in the sense that Ryan implies.

In conclusion, Ryan claims: "...the continued support of known purveyors of false information like Jim Fetzer, gives the national discussion about 9/11 truth the potential to become an absurd theater of the damned."

In fact, Ryan himself has presented a demonstrably false argument defaming the reputation of Jim Fetzer. He asserts that Fetzer is a cointelpro-style disinformation agent, yet produces only transparently fallacious "evidence" in support of his claim. I suppose this makes Ryan himself a "known purveyor of false information."

Both "known purveyors of false information," Jim Fetzer and Kevin Ryan, are human, and therefore fallible. Which kind of error is worse: Fetzer's mistakes in interpreting technical evidence and/or presenting his findings to the public, or Ryan's mistake in baselessly accusing Fetzer of criminal complicity in high treason and mass murder?


Today on my radio show, Ken Jenkins, who (like Kevin Ryan) deplores Fetzer's enthusiasm for DEW and video fakery, made a very important point: We have so much evidence for 9/11 being an inside job that each particular evidentiary issue is, in and of itself, of only minor importance. This is especially true of "scientific" evidence, since in a courtroom there will always be counter-experts brought in to oppose any scientific evidence presented. Therefore, disputes about this kind of evidence are relatively unimportant in and of themselves. What is important is the damage to the morale of the truth movement that infighting - about anything - can cause.

That's why Fetzer's biggest mistake was not exploring DEW or video fakery hypotheses, but getting into an ego battle with Steven Jones in the late fall (not summer) of 2006. And Kevin Ryan's mistake - which seems to me worse than Fetzer's - is to accuse a fellow truth-seeker of complicity in the worst crime ever committed on American soil, without a shred of actual evidence.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

David Ray Griffin labeled 'disinfo' by keyboard warrior




It sounds like an Onion headline: "David Ray Griffin labeled 'disinfo' by keyboard warrior."

This has got to be a joke, right? Somebody out to make fun of the excesses and occasional idiocies of the 9/11 truth movement must have penned a very clever parody?

If only.

An unknown and unaccomplished blogger named Erik Larson (NOT Professor Eric Larsen who was the best writer in the 9/11 truth movement before he retired from politics and returned to literature) has put David Ray Griffin, whose eight 9/11 books have set the standard for 9/11 research, in the "Mis & Disinfo" category at his website. Mr. Larson, if that is indeed his real name, apparently believes that Dr. Griffin's extensive research on alleged 9/11 cell phone calls from allegedly hijacked airliners is "Mis & Disinfo." Larsen's article, heavily plagiarized from Griffin-cell-phone-theory critic Andrew Kornkven, is a classic example of the "if it's possible, no matter how improbable, then it must be so (if it confirms the official story)" fallacy so prevalent among "debunkers."

I am not the Onion; I am not interested in an amusing "local nobody pretends to be somebody" story. So why should I care that some nobody out there in cyberland is claiming to be a truther yet defaming Dr. Griffin?

The problem is that Larson and a bunch of his fellow nobodies, nonentities, mediocrities, and pseudonyms have seized control of 911blogger -- a bait n' switch operation that established itself early as the go-to 9/11 news-and-views site, then underwent a series of putsches and bannings that have gradually aligned it with the forces of dimness. The clique behind the coup at 911blogger seems dedicated to three projects: (1) Use pseudonyms, nonentities and mediocrities to defame real, accomplished people in the 9/11 truth movement; (2) Do everything possible, from a supposedly "truther" perspective, to support the discredited hypothesis that America really was attacked by Arab/Muslim hijackers on 9/11; and (3) Keep a lid on the extensive evidence implicating the Israeli Mossad and Zionism in 9/11, while building a firewall between the 9/11 truth movement and the burgeoning pro-Palestine movement (which counts among its enthusiasts most of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims - the very constituency an honest 9/11 truth movement could enlist for truly massive support, both financial and numerical).

Let's compare Erik Larson's colleagues at his website, "911reports.com," with the people they love to smear and attack.

In one corner, Team Larson, a.k.a. the Nattering Nobodies of Negativism: "Arabesque," "Col. Jenny Sparks," "George Washington," Jon Gold, and "Reprehensor." "George Washington" is a real person with a law degree who happens to be a talented researcher and writer - a nice guy who shouldn't be hanging out in a place like this. The rest are certified nonentities: keyboard warriors or worse without a shred of talent or integrity and without significant real-world accomplishments to their mostly imaginary names. "Reprehensor," whom I met at the Vancouver conference where I was MC, was the second most nervous, ill-at-ease person I have ever seen at a 9/11 conference (the first was Jim Hoffman at the DC 9/11 Truth Emergency conference in 2005). "Reprehensor" has supposedly claimed to be from Wisconsin, though none of us who have been busting our butts for 9/11 truth here since 2003 have ever heard of him. Like the other NNNs, he has apparently never actually published anything; earned an advanced degree; engaged in real-world scholarship; written a book; organized a conference or event; or made public any kind of CV or real-world biography.

In the other corner, targeted by the NNNs:

David Ray Griffin
, one of the world's leading generalist scholars, author of 30 books including eight on 9/11, acknowledged as the world's leading scholar of 9/11 by near-universal consensus.

Barrie Zwicker, Canadian media critic, author of Towers of Deception, maker of The Great Conspiracy, widely regarded as the premiere early 9/11 truth leader and still ranked by some beside Dr. Griffin at the top of the field.

Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall, authors of several of the best 9/11 truth books (and, alongside Jim Marrs' The Terror Conspiracy the only ones picked up by a major publisher).

Webster Tarpley, author of the definitive unauthorized biographies of George H.W. Bush and Obama among other important books, including 9/11: Synthetic Terror.

Yours truly (9/11 cv here, more info here and here).

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, the second-most-important professional 9/11 truth organization after Architects and Engineers.

The Rock Creek Free Press, the world's leading truth newspaper, published in Larson's hometown of Washington, D.C.

Citizens Investigation Team
, the moniker of Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, two of our most accomplished Pentagon researchers.

James Fetzer, founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, highly accomplished scholar, author/editor of dozens of books and articles.

Those are just the victims of explicit attacks from our crew of nay-saying nobodies. On top of that...

By rabidly affirming that real cell phone calls (or in the fallback story version cell and seatback phone calls) were made during real hijackings on 9/11, they implicitly attack the extensive research A.K. Dewdney of Scientific Panel Investigating 9/11, perhaps the most-credentialed scientist ever to have made 9/11 truth his mission. (In his anti-Griffin piece, Larson dismisses Dewdney's research because it was done in Canada! No, I'm not kidding - but I wish I were.)

By ferociously defending the official claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, they go after Enver Masud, a highly respected and accomplished engineer who is both a Pentagon witness and a leading Pentagon researcher (and, like Dewdney and me, a key Muslim for 9/11 Truth); Barbara Honegger, another critically-important Pentagon researcher; and a long list of other first-rate researchers, including the notable European journalist Thierry Meyssan, who first broke the Pentagon story.

By doing everything they can to defend the "Muslim hijackers" narrative, the Nattering Nobodies go after Paul Zarembka's The Hidden History of 9/11, which highlights evidence against hijackings including the credible reports that up to 10 alleged hijackers turned up alive after 9/11; and the tremendous work of Elias Davidsson, who has completely demolished the myth of Muslim hijackers.

By doing everything they can to smear and silence the people pointing to Israeli and Zionist complicity in 9/11 - which those of us who actually know something about Mideast affairs realize is by far the most logical hypothesis based on history and geopolitical motive - the Nobodies are trying to snuff out the most exciting and fastest-growing wing of the movement, featuring such luminaries as Alan Hart, Alan Sabrosky, Michael Andregg, and the whole crew at Veterans Today (including editor Gordon Duff and world citizen Ken O'Keefe)...not to mention a series of important books ranging from Justin Raimondo's The Terror Enigma to Christopher Bollyn's Solving 9/11.

Add it all up, and it seems the Nattering Nobodies have done their best to tarnish the image of virtually all of the best books on 9/11! Of the two dozen or so top-shelf books on the subject, the only ones to escape their mudslinging are the seminal but now-outdated The War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed, and Peter Dale Scott's The Road to 9/11 - which is not really about 9/11 itself, and does not challenge the "Muslim hijackers" myth. (None of the Nattering Nobodies, of course, is capable of writing a publishable book...while their hero, Jim Hoffman, needed the help of Don Paul to put out one notably mediocre volume.)

While smearing virtually the entire literature of alternative 9/11 scholarship, the NNNs have also worked overtime to try to stop the most rhetorically successful 9/11 truth films from reaching a broad audience. Those films, in order of importance, are: Loose Change (especially the fast-moving earlier versions); 9/11 Mysteries; 9/11 In Plane Site; and 9/11 Ripple Effect. All were bad-mouthed by NNNs during their critical growth phases.

The NNNs, in short, are parasites that attach themselves to the high-energy parts of the truth movement in an apparent attempt to kill off that energy. Their specialty is deceptive destructive criticism: ad-hominem smear-jobs disguised as critique.

So there you have them: the Nattering Nobodies of Negativism, those passive-aggressive little dweebs huddling in their parents' basements cranking out attacks on real authors, scholars, researchers and journalists.

Friday, February 11, 2011

"People power" topples Mubarak - now can it topple apartheid Israel?

As Tahrir Square in Cairo turned into the party of the century following Mubarak's departure, the running headline on al-Jazeera underlined America's continuing cluelessness: "US Calls on Egypt to Respect Peace Treaty With Israel."

Hello! Has anybody in Washington noticed that Mubarak is despised precisely because he represents that so-called "peace treaty" - which is actually a declaration of war on Palestine?

The cold, hard truth is that virtually nobody in the Middle East accepts the legitimacy of the GZE (genocidal Zionist entity). People from the region refer to it as al-kiyan as-sahyuni (the Zionist entity) not Israel because they do not accept that there ever has been, or ever will be, any such country as "Israel." Middle Easterners may be happy to declare a long-term ceasefire, perhaps even a permanent one, with the genocidal racists who have hypnotized themselves into thinking that there is such a country as "Israel" and who have slaughtered and exiled the Palestinians in pursuit of that mad dream. Like sane people everywhere, the people of the Middle East love peace and hate bloodshed. But they cannot be made to accept, in their hearts, that absurd little Jewish Bantustan implanted by the Rothschilds into the heart of the Middle East like a poisoned dagger.

As today's radio guest Francis Boyle told me, the Palestinians must not, under any circumstances, enter into any further negotiations with the Zionist entity. After twenty-two years of negotiating in good faith for a two-state solution, only to be met with nothing but lies and ongoing genocide, it is time for the Palestinians - and the rest of the people of the Middle East - to turn the page.

Professor Boyle cites a CIA study predicting that Israel will self-destruct within twenty years. So why prolong Israel's rapidly-expiring shelf-life by offering it unearned legitimacy? The Palestinians may be forced by international pressure to maintain a "willing to negotiate" posture - but they must not under any circumstances compromise on their God-given, internationally-recognized right of all refugees everywhere to return to their homes and reclaim their property - including in those parts of Palestine now occupied by the Zionist entity. By holding fast to right of return, the Palestinians will avoid signing a suicidal "peace agreement" relegating them to a smattering of disconnected Bantustans on less than 20% of historic Palestine. When Israel implodes, and those Zionists who can't live in peace with Palestinian neighbors flee to Europe and the US, the Palestinians will implement their right of return unilaterally: by returning. And people, let me tell you, THAT celebration (in which I hope to participate insha'allah) will make Tahrir Square look like an old ladies' bridge party.

Meanwhile, the people of the Middle East and their supporters around the world can help make this happen sooner rather than later. First, all governments in the Middle East, starting with liberated Egypt, must immediately withdraw all forms of recognition of the Zionist entity. Second, all individuals must do the same. If a person claiming Israeli citizenship enters your visual field - walk right through them. Knock them over. Pretend they don't exist. Refuse to speak or deal with them. This age-old "shunning" tactic, practiced by enough people worldwide (and practiced universally by the people of the Middle East) could put the final nail in the Zionist coffin.

The people of Egypt refused to accept Mubarak. And the people of Egypt and the rest of the Middle East have, ever and always, refused to accept "Israel" - even though this refusal has been glossed over and betrayed by treasonous "leaders" like Mubarak.

It is time for the people power of the Middle East, and the world, to finish the job started in Iran (1979), Tunisia (2011) and Egypt (2011)...and topple the biggest and ugliest idol in the region: al-kiyan as-sahyuni.

Monday, February 7, 2011

A Call to Jihad

* * *


Who is so blind?
(from Dick Eastman)
Who is so blind not to notice that Muslim/populist/Egyptians are all for peace and it is the pro-Zionist Israel-US controlled Mubarak -- taker of US Jew awarded US taxpayer  financed weapons -- who kills and throws bombs to provoke?  The ones the Jews* back are doing the killing  -- the Moslems are giving us the best demonstration of Christlike forbearance since Mahatma Gandhi!!!!   We must notice that!  We must respond to that --  we must reclaim the American idealism that the Jews have destroyed and recognize the goodness of the Egyptian demonstrators and the murder and chaos serving ways of Zionism's puppets -- the Eliteworld sociopaths who are alike the world over.  On the streets of Egypt is being exhibited the evil of a government in of Israel/Zionism/globalization  policy, and the basic goodness of the common people in Islaam.  What more does the world need to see in order to render the necessary verdict?  I'm asking YOU!


-Dick Eastman, 2/6/2011


A Call to Jihad

by Kevin Barrett, www.TruthJihad.com

Since my mission as an educator is currently fi sabili llah, I thought it might be educational to issue a call to jihad. And I am not just talking about "greater jihad" - the effort or struggle to be a better person. I am calling on my fellow Muslims, and all good people, to rise up in lesser jihad.

What, exactly, is lesser jihad? Despite all the Zionist media propaganda, it is NOT "holy war." Instead, it might be defined as "political effort or struggle to defend the community by annihilating tyranny and striving for justice."

Does this mean...armed struggle?! Historically, it usually did. Islam was born in a defensive armed struggle against the tyranny of the Meccan oligarchy. After more than a decade of turn-the-other-cheek preaching (610-622 c.e.) during which the Prophet SAAS and companions suffered atrocious persecution, the nascent Muslim community was given permission to defend itself by force. And it did so - with tremendous success.

The lesson of this and so many other historical episodes - that if good abjures the clenched fist, evil will use it to rule unopposed - is clear to everyone who has faced a playground bully or studied history.

Unfortunately, the concept of jihad has been much-abused by Muslim rulers and their court scholars. They have often used jihad as a synonym for legitimate or just war. And in a ruler's eyes, any war he engages in must, by definition, be just.

A more clear-eyed view of jihad was offered by Sayyid Qutb, the brilliant Egyptian philosopher-polemicist who is so often demonized by the enemies of Islam (and not a few "moderate Muslim" uncle toms.)  Qutb's basic insight - that the core political tenet of Islam is that human beings should be servants only of God, not of other humans - informs his view of jihad as struggle against tyranny. As long as some people feel the need to dominate and oppress their fellows, there will be a need for this kind of jihad. Qutb's view that jihad is fard ayn - incumbent upon individuals when faced with oppression - makes more sense to me than the countervailing doctrine, that it may only be declared by a legitimate Muslim caliph. (Since when has there been a fully legitimate caliph since the time of the khulafa' ar-rashidûn? And since when did any actual Muslim ruler NOT use court scholars to declare any war he wanted to fight a legitimate "jihad"?)

Qutb's notion of jihad as struggle against tyranny, incumbent upon every Muslim, has terrified the world's tyrants. They have responded by raising their level of tyranny to unimaginable heights. The torture and murder of millions of Muslims who are struggling for justice - whether in the dungeons of Egypt or the cages of Guantanamo and Bagram or the depleted-uranium-poisoned killing fields of Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine - is the tyrants' tacit admission: "Yes, we are the tyrants you hate - what of it?" The use of false-flag terror tactics on a hitherto unimaginable scale, from the death-squad slaughter of more than 100,000 Algerians to the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center to the detonation of an Israeli mini-nuke in Bali to the bombing of trains in Madrid and London to the mass shootings in Mumbai - is the tyrants' tacit admission: "Yes, we are the liars and mass murderers that you silly people who believe in truth and justice take us for - what of it?"  And the September 11th 2008 controlled demolition of the US and world economy is the tyrants' tacit admission: "We are building a tyrannical global empire on usury, and we intend to finish the job - what of it?"

Anne Norton, Adam Curtis and others have remarked that today's world seems to be divided between the followers of Leo Strauss - aptly described by Shadia Drury as a "teacher of evil" - and Sayyid Qutb. Strauss, the world's leading apologist for tyranny, taught that those who are strong enough to know that there is no such thing as truth or goodness, and that therefore lies and evil rule, must seize power and use lies, murder, and any other available means to perpetuate their tyranny. Qutb's call to the everlasting struggle against tyranny does indeed make him a sort of anti-Strauss.

By staging a seemingly endless series of false-flag attacks designed to demonize the followers of Qutb, the followers of Strauss have tried to misrepresent Qutb's call to jihad as a call to senseless violence. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Muslim political activists - the kind of people who are today locked up in Guantanamo and Bagram (alongside the market vendors and taxi drivers turned in for a bounty by the criminals who collaborate with occupiers) - have, taken together, been responsible for a minuscule fraction of the violence committed by those who are imprisoning them. For every non-combatant killed by a Qutb-inspired "jihadi," tens of thousands have been slaughtered by the tyrants those jihadis are struggling against.

But lesser jihad - the universal individual duty to struggle against tyranny - is not just armed struggle. The hadith "the best jihad is a word of truth flung in the face of a tyrant" tells us that even at the time of the Prophet, the word was mightier - and better - than the sword. Today, when swords have been replaced by nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, words-of-truth are looking better and better all the time.

That is why I am calling on all Muslims, and all good people, to rise up against the world's tyrants in the "best jihad" - by fearlessly speaking the truth.

The people of Egypt, amassed in Liberation Square to annihilate the tyrant Mubarak with their words of truth, represent the real future of jihad.

May Allah bless their struggle - and yours.

* * *



* Personally I disagree with Dick Eastman's use of the term "the Jews," when what he means is "the Zionists." Zionists are not Jews - they are idolaters and blasphemers and criminals against humanity. Here are real Jews. Unfortunately, since the Zionist Power Configuration completely dominates organized "Jewry" in the US and around the world, and the ZPC is dominated by people who falsely call themselves Jews, Eastman's language is not completely indefensible.

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Super-Stupid Saturday: My Dumbest Blog Entry Ever

Since it's Super-Stupid weekend, date of the annual American Festival of Gridiron Violence (AFGV) that comprises our nation's true religion - or rather our true false religion, i.e. our chief idolatry and heresy -  and since the Stupor Bowl will soon be rendering Americans comatose as they sink slowly into millions of beer-stained sofas across the nation and begin gorging themselves on junk food and screaming mindlessly at the televised image of a mob of armor-plated skirmishing behemoths knocking themselves silly while squabbling over possession of the inflated bladder of a long-since-deceased pig - and, above all, since THE GREEN BAY PACKERS ARE ACTUALLY IN THE SUPER BOWL (which in the eyes of many is sufficient proof of the existence of God), I feel that it is only fitting that I post something really, REALLY stupid in honor of the occasion. So here goes: instead of scintillating insights into New World Order corruption or Mideast politics or the subtleties of comparative mysticism, I'm going to write about dogs and football.
First, dogs. Dogs can be really, really cool even if the Prophet Muhammad (SAAS) said they tend to keep angels from visiting your house. Our dog, Rushdie, is sweet, clean, delicate, and refined.  If any angels came around, he would never bark at them; he would greet them effusively. Rushdie nibbles his food delicately after sniffing it over carefully - unlike baser dogs who mindlessly wolf down just about anything they can find. He is extremely intelligent and seems almost psychic in his ability to quickly understand our thoughts, emotions and plans. Rushdie has only one bad habit: He unleashes an earsplitting, thunderous bark when he sees another dog through the car window.  We suspect he barks at other dogs because he sees them as threats to his most prized possessions -- namely, us.

(Video of me meeting Rushdie's namesake.)

Okay, enough about dogs. Let's talk about football!

Aaron Rodgers' amazing performance against Atlanta on January 16th was the best I've ever seen by an NFL quarterback. Playing his fourth straight must-win game on the road, against one of the best teams in football, Rodgers was precision-perfect, eluding pass rushers who would have snagged any other QB, and firing strike after strike with his patented quick-release. Rodgers was so good Atlanta's defense didn't have a chance; the Packers never even had to punt.

What made Rodgers' performance even more impressive was that Atlanta had gained the momentum early in the game, and the noise level in the Falcons' stadium was like an Atlanta airport runway. Every time the Packers broke huddle, it was like a jet was taking off a few feet overhead. Rodgers, who had been under some pressure here in Wisconsin because he is not Brett Favre and had not yet won any championships, responded by putting on one of the greatest aerial displays ever. And people finally noticed: Troy Aikman said Rodgers is the best quarterback in the NFL, and headlines appeared saying things like "This Just In: Rodgers Is Really Good."

This is a guy who can handle pressure. He'd better be, since he's following in the footsteps of Brett Favre. And because he's so good, and so good at handling pressure, he's doing what, to my knowledge, only Steve Young has ever done: emerge from the shadow of backing up the best quarterback in football, to quickly become the best quarterback in football.

Rodgers himself is undoubtedly aware of the parallel.  He recently said that the Packers' Super Bowl run is "what I've dreamt about since I was a kid growing up in Northern California watching (San Francisco 49ers quarterbacks) Joe Montana and Steve Young."

I moved from Wisconsin to San Francisco in the early 80's, just in time to catch Joe Montana's incredible career. Talk about cool under pressure! Down by five points, San Francisco's ball on its own ten yard line, three minutes left in the game: Montana's got them exactly where he wants them.  After four Super Bowl victories and 31 fourth-quarter come-from-behind wins, Montana finally left San Francisco to his young backup, a guy whose name happened to be Young.

San Francisco fans, spoiled by all those years of great teams and incredible performances by Montana, were hesitant to embrace Steve Young. The press gave him a hard time because he wasn't Joe Montana. But Steve Young persisted and quickly emerged as the best quarterback in football, a terrific passer who happened to be the fastest guy on the team and could run like a pro-bowl halfback. San Franciscans, including me, were doubly spoiled by the Montana-Young quarterback dynasty.

Now the same thing is happening in Green Bay...except the Packer fans, who are classier than Niner fans, are giving Rodgers a warmer welcome than Young got. In Packer hangouts, including the taverns in rural Wisconsin where, as the token Muslim, I drink root beer and try to avoid pork items in the buffet, nobody's wearing #4 Favre jerseys any more. Everywhere you look the green-and-gold shirts say  #12, Aaron Rodgers.

It seems to me Rodgers encapsulates some of the best features of Montana, Young, and Favre. Like Montana, he's cool under pressure. Like Young, he's fast and mobile - a hard target for pass rushers and a threat to run with the ball if nobody's open. And like Favre, he's a great passer and tremendous competitor. 

And now, like Favre, he's taken the Packers to the Super Bowl.

The Packers and Steelers seem evenly matched. Anything could happen. But considering the Rodgers factor - he's especially good in domed stadiums like the one in Arlington - I wouldn't be surprised if it turned into a Packer blowout.

So...I gave one of my favorite internet writers the Steelers and three points. Loser has to effusively praise the winner's writing.  Stay tuned to this space to see how that turns out!

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Is Wikileaks Bogus? Chomsky, Azaziah Weigh In!


Is Wikileaks for real? Monday's guest on Truth Jihad Radio, Jonathan Azaziah, has ripped Wikileaks as a Mossad operation. And nothing he's seen since then has changed his opinion.

Meanwhile the anti-9/11-truth left, i.e. the gatekeepers, are almost all Wikileaks cheerleaders.  Julian Assange, like these gatekeepers, is "annoyed by 9/11 conspiracy theories." Now Wikileaks tells us that the mean, nasty Muslim suicide hijacking plot was even bigger than we realized, aided by an al-Qaeda support network that the government never discovered. Uh-huh. Whatever you say, Julian.

Oddly, Noam Chomsky, the former 9/11 gatekeeper who now admits there is no evidence that al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington, recently cast doubt on Wikileaks.


The vibrant democracy movement in Tunisia was directed against “a police state, with little freedom of expression or association, and serious human rights problems,” ruled by a dictator whose family was hated for their venality. This was the assessment by U.S. Ambassador Robert Godec in a July 2009 cable released by WikiLeaks.

Therefore to some observers the WikiLeaks “documents should create a comforting feeling among the American public that officials aren’t asleep at the switch” – indeed, that the cables are so supportive of U.S. policies that it is almost as if Obama is leaking them himself (or so Jacob Heilbrunn writes in The National Interest.)

“America should give Assange a medal,” says a headline in the Financial Times. Chief foreign-policy analyst Gideon Rachman writes that “America’s foreign policy comes across as principled, intelligent and pragmatic … the public position taken by the U.S. on any given issue is usually the private position as well.”

In this view, WikiLeaks undermines the “conspiracy theorists” who question the noble motives that Washington regularly proclaims.

Is Chomsky joining the Wiki-skeptics? Or is he intentionally distracting us from the obvious fact that Wikileaks has generally damaged US interests while supporting Israeli ones - as Azaziah argues persuasively

Tune in Monday to Truth Jihad Radio, 1 to 3 pm Central on AmericanFreedomRadio.com, to hear two full hours of Jonathan Azaziah, and perhaps a surprise guest or two, debating the Wikileaks issue!


Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Jerry Mazza: THE GOOD DR. IZZELDIN ABUELAISH





THE GOOD DR. IZZELDIN ABUELAISH

by Jerry Mazza
(First Heard on Democracy Now)

The attack on Gaza, December 28th,
‘09, Operation Cast Lead,
pre-fabricated its excuse
to attack with soldiers, tanks and planes
for 22 unlawful days,
some 1400 Palestinians killed,
more than half civilians, 300 children,
only 13 Israelis to match
the slaughter of the innocents.
“Keep them functioning at the lowest
possible level,” Israeli officials
said to U.S. diplomats,
and Wiki leaked their awful truth,
killing the Doctor’s three daughters cold,
another leaking an eyeball as a tear…
this gynecologist who brought
Israeli children into the world,
slapping their tushies for a cry.
But only his screams of grief rang in
the cellphone to his good friend Shlomi,
Newsman for Channel Ten in Israel,
sending the scream across the country,
conversation of survival,
talking to each other, not just
killing in an exploding silence.
Yet the Doctor Shall Not Hate,
..his book reads…On a Road
to Peace and Human Dignity,
wishing to cross the checkpoints of fear
to work and home in Gaza,
the refugee Camp Jabalia,
recognition of his self and others…
those three daughters and a niece,
another daughter and his brother hurt,
by the two tank shells that severed
heads from bodies’ recognition,
recognizing death’s dominion
yielded only screams. Words were
his bullets, pointed, deadly healing,
explosive in the piercing silence.
Would he lives a thousand years
bringing new life to the old world
destroying wives and husbands, brothers,
sisters of the muted earth.
This is his deed willed to the future,
finding which lost are his, which theirs.
And nothing less will do, fair surgeon,
opening the heart to stop its blockage,
tearing down a wall of plaque
scraping it clean of human parts
produced by centuries of hate,
leaving it scrubbed as a child’s slate.
This is the alphabet of love,
of knowing, wisdom, uncut joy.
This is the beginning that once was,
from a to z, aleph to tav.

Jerry Mazza, 1/20/2011/Revised 11/20-25/2011