If you like this blog

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

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Four Arrows responds to George Bush's National Geographic interview

Frequent radio guest Four Arrows weighs in on Bush's attempt to wriggle out of his self-incriminating "pet goat moment." -KB


"Still Clueless": Reflections on George Bush's Comments Regarding His Response on 9/11

By Four Arrows    

     In May of this year, Time Magazine interviewed the children present the day Bush was told on 9/11 about America being "under attack." http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2069582,00.html

    According to interviews, most of the children knew something terrible had happened by the change in the president’s composition and complexion. "But I'll always remember watching his face turn red. He got really serious all of a sudden. But I was clueless. I was just 7." Nonetheless, in his recent interview with National Geographic, Bush claims he remained with the children because he wanted to "project calm."

     Unfortunately, the now older students, like many unthinking members of the American public, agree with the principle of the school Bush visited. She "insisted:" "I don't think anyone could have handled it better. What would it have served if [Bush] had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?" 

    It is also unfortunate that the school principal felt that there were only two options for a president of the United States upon learning that his country was under invastion; Either to sit still for ten minutes, unable to hide his shock to even to six and seven year olds, or to “jump out of his chair and run out of the room.” That a school principal and the teenagers with such a personal interest in the events of 9/11 can maintain such beliefs, what does this say about education in our country? Such thinking reveals an inability to discern reality that does not bode well for our future. It is evidence of the high degree of cultural and educational hegemony that continues to allow those in control of the U.S. To literally "get away with murder."

   Bush said, "My first reaction was anger. Who the hell would want to do that to the U.S. So I made the decision not to jump up immediately and leave the classroom. I didn't want to rattle the kids. I wanted to project a sense of calm."  The seven-year olds knew at the time that Bush was shaken, but ten years later they accept that he projected a sense of calm and "did the right thing?"     We may never know if he is telling the truth with these words because of his level of intelligence; or if he is lying and had been briefed to "do nothing" in advance by his puppet master(s, his chagrin perhaps being the shock of understanding the gravity of what was actually coming down the pike; or that maybe he is not as dumb as he acts and he knew all along but could not hide his emotions upon realizing the plan was operational. In any case, something is rotten in the proverbial Denmark. If the only response from even even the producer of the National Geographic special, Peter Schnall, is, "Listening to him (Bush) describe how he grappled with a sense of anger and frustration coupled with his personal mandate to lead our country through this devastating attack was incredibly powerful," those of us who care about truth had better ramp up our counter-hegemonic efforts.

     In the Time Magazine article another student who was in the class with Bush that fateful day, now 16 years of age, says she is happy Bush regained his composure and stayed with the students "until The Pet Goat book was finished." (She does not mention that he kept the book upside down.) She is quoted as saying, "I think the President was trying to keep us from finding out," says Guerrero, "so we all wouldn't freak out."

      Well, there it is. Ten years later, as the 9/11 truth movement struggles with an effort to present overwhelming evidence that what we are told happened on that day is a fraud, this teenager unintentionally gets it right.  They are still trying to keep us from finding out, so we all don't freak out!

- Four Arrows


Reuters reports on the five minutes of the interview the network aired during a session for the Television Critics Association:

"My first reaction was anger. Who the hell would do that to America? Then I immediately focused on the children, and the contrast between the attack and the innocence of children," Bush says in an excerpt of the interview shown to television writers on Thursday.

Bush said he could see the news media at the back of the classroom getting the news on their own cellphones "and it was like watching a silent movie."

Bush said he quickly realized that a lot of people beyond the classroom would be watching for his reaction.

"So I made the decision not to jump up immediately and leave the classroom. I didn't want to rattle the kids. I wanted to project a sense of calm," he said of his decision to remain seated and silent.

"I had been in enough crises to know that the first thing a leader has to do is to project calm," he added.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Norway killer is in love with Waleed Shoebat!

It turns out that Anders Behring Breivik's biggest inspiration is none other than my old buddy: the pathological liar and professional Islamophobe, Waleed Shoebat. (Check out my debate with Shoebat here; read my parody of Shoebat here.)  -Kevin Barrett

* * *

Anti-Muslim law enforcement trainer cited by Norway killer rakes in U.S. taxpayer cash

By Alex Kane, http://alethonews.wordpress.com | July 26, 2011

The U.S. government has strongly denounced the recent massacre by a right-wing extremist in Norway, which killed at least 76 people.  But at the same time, sectors of the U.S. government have paid an anti-Muslim activist who helped fuel Anders Behring Breivik’s twisted ideology.  Breivik has admitted to being behind the massacre in Norway.

The American Prospect’s Adam Serwer writes:

Walid Shoebat, a “terrorism expert” with a dubious background who was paid by the U.S. government to train law enforcement in counterterrorism, is frequently cited in the manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik, the alleged right-wing terrorist who is accused of killing more than 90 people in Oslo last week. Brevik cites Shoebat more than 15 times.


Brevik cites Shoebat to support his arguments that immigration from Muslim countries threatens the West. “This is why the face of Islamic fundamentalism in the West has a façade that Islam is a peaceful religion,” Brevik cites Shoebat as saying, “Because they are waiting to have more Islamic immigrants, they are waiting to increase in number, waiting to increase their political power.”

As I reported here, Shoebat, the subject of a recent CNN report that debunks his purported life story as a former Palestinian terrorist, rakes in U.S. taxpayer cash.

Two months ago, Shoebat delivered a keynote address to law enforcement officers attending a South Dakota conference on homeland security.  Shoebat was paid $5,000 for the appearance by the South Dakota Office of Homeland Security–the money coming a federal grant administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

At a similar counter-terrorism event held last year in Las Vegas, Shoebat reportedly told the audience that the way to solve the threat of Islamic extremism was to “kill them…including the children.”

Shoebat is one of many anti-Muslim activists from the United States cited in Breivik’s online manifesto.  It’s a disturbing reality that Shoebat’s views on Islam are being funded with federal grants and listened to by law enforcement agencies in the U.S. The revelation that Breivik’s manifesto is laced with citations of Shoebat should be a wake-up call to the U.S. government that Shoebat, and others like him, have no place training law enforcement officers, and should certainly not be taking money from U.S. taxpayers.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Israel prime suspect in Norway attack

[Note:  Dean Henderson, author of Was Israel Behind Norway Terror Attacks? will be my guest on Truth Jihad Radio this Wednesday, 1-2 pm Central...with a possible cameo from Gordon Duff of Veterans Today.]

One thing's for sure about the Utoya Island massacre, perpetrated by an Israel-loving Islamophobic freemason: It was NOT a false-flag attack orchestrated by Muslims to demonize Israel, Islamophobia, and freemasonry.

While all rules have exceptions, I think it is safe to say that Muslims just aren't into false-flag attacks. As Wendy Campbell once said on my radio show: "The Muslims always TELL YOU if they're going to blow you up!" I responded that this was a backhanded compliment at best...but seriously, folks, Wendy had a point. I don't know if it's that Muslims are more basically honest, or that they lack the imagination (or perversity) of their Zionist counterparts, but for whatever reason, Muslims don't have a history of false-flagging.

But Zionists do. As Wendy also pointed out, Israelis have a long history of dressing up as Arabs, or fabricating Arab patsies, to take the blame for their mayhem. Just about all of the most notorious "Arab terrorist attacks" in history have been revealed as Mossad operations, often by former Mossad officers themselves. From the King David Hotel bombing (the Zionist bombers dressed up as Arabs) to the Lavon Affair (they dressed up as Egyptians to plant bombs against Americans) to the USS Liberty incident (intended to be blamed on Egypt to bring the US into the 1967 war) to the Achille Lauro and Entebbe hijacking affairs (revealed as Mossad false-flag operations by former Mossad agents), the record suggests that big, iconic "Arab" or "Muslim" terror attacks are likely to be Mossad operations in disguise. Likewise, evidence suggests that 9/11, 7/7, Bali, Madrid, and Mumbai appear to be part of a Zionist plan to drag the West into a war against Islam

So if Israel was responsible for the terrorist attacks in Norway, as many credible observers suspect, why didn't they set up the usual Muslim patsy to take the fall? Why use a guy whose background pointed straight to the Zionists themselves?

Maybe they wanted to send a message.

* * *
WAS THE MASSACRE IN NORWAY A REACTION TO BDS? by Gilad Atzmon

"I learned last night from an Israeli online journal, that two days before the Utoya Island massacre, AUF’s (Labour Party's youth movement) leader Eskil Pedersen gave an interview to the Dagbladet, Norway's second largest tabloid newspaper, in which he unveiled what he thinks of Israel.

"In the course of the interview, Pedersen stated that he “believes the time has come for more drastic measures against Israel, and (that he) wants the Foreign Minister to impose an economic boycott against the country.”

"...The full facts of the Norwegian tragedy are,  as yet,  unknown,  but the message should by now be transparently and urgently clear to all of us: Western intelligence agencies must immediately crackdown on Israeli and Zionist operators in our midst,  and regarding the terrible events of the weekend,  it must be made absolutely clear who it was that spread such hate and promoted such terror,  and for what exact reasons."

* * *


Was Israel Behind Norway Terror Attacks? by Dean Henderson

Friday’s bloodbath in progressive Norway bears the markings of an Israeli Mossad false flag terror attack. No Western country has supported the Palestinian cause more than the Norwegians....

* * *

Breaking Story:, The Second Tragedy is the Lies,  By Gordon Duff

“The attack in Oslo also came 65 years to the very day after the Israeli Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem”…Eileen Fleming

* * *

And this just in from Maidhc O Cathail:


Whatever about Shimon Peres' claims that Israelis are heartbroken over Norway's suffering, there's certainly no love lost between the two countries, as you can see from these posts at The Passionate Attachment...

Norway youths discussed Palestine prior to attack
Forty-eight hours before Friday massacre, teens participating in ruling party youth camp met with Norwegian foreign minister. Some called for boycott of Israel...

Breivik: Europeans Should Support Israel
Richard Silverstein has a couple of interesting posts on the Norwegian terror suspect’s associations with rightwing Zionist Islamophobes...

Dershowitz: Norway’s anti-Semitism doesn’t even mask itself as anti-Zionism
On March 29, Alan Dershowitz had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Norway to Jews: You’re Not Welcome Here.” Dershowitz was not pleased with the less than enthusiastic reception he received on a recent speaking tour organized by a Norwegian pro-Israel group:

Norway government-run pension fund drops Africa Israel group shares
Oslo says EUR450bn oil fund has excluded two Israeli firms for ethical reasons.

Oslo was demanding relocation of unpopular Israeli embassy

Israel indignant at Norway’s upgrade of Palestinian mission
Late last year, Oslo upset Israel by upgrading the Palestinian mission from ‘general delegation’ to ‘diplomatic mission’ in recognition of Palestinian Authority’s efforts to establish independent state:

Israel: Norway inciting against us
Foreign Ministry says Norwegian authorities funding anti-Israel film, exhibition, and play. Norway: We support freedom of expression

Gerstenfeld: Something rotten in Norway
Op-ed: Norwegian elite dominated by anti-Israel haters obsessed with Jewish state

Two days before Oslo massacre, Zionist mag raged against Norway’s “anti-Semitic” multiculturalism

Two days before the July 22 Oslo massacre, the rightwing Zionist FrontPageMag.com published “The Quislings of Norway,” in which Joseph Klein prefigured Anders Breivik’s rage against multiculturalism...

Gerstenfeld: Security was lax in Israel-obsessed Norway
In an op-ed in Ynet, Manfred Gerstenfeld points out some of the lessons to be drawn from Norway’s first experience with terrorism...

Doth Israel weep too much?
Omitting any mention of the countries’ strained relations or the fact that responsibility for the Oslo massacre is being claimed by a pro-Israel Norwegian Islamophobe, Israeli President Shimon Peres told Norwegian King Harald V that Israelis were heartbroken by the news...

‘Oslo Generation’ Joins Army
Youths born when Israel signed the Oslo Accords with the PLO are now 18 and joining the army, highly motivated after childhood under terror.

European Jewish leaders disavow Breivik’s Zionism
The Jewish Telegraph Agency reports on European Jewish leaders’ efforts to disavow Anders Breivik’s pro-Israel philosophy...

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Jonathan Kay's Among the Truthers: "It All Ties in to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!!!!"


Just finished my 90 minute slugfest with Jonathan Kay (it was only supposed to last 60 minutes, but time flies when you're having a good time). The show is archived for on-demand listening here. Kay is the author of Among the Truthers: A Journey into the Growing Underground of 9/11 Truthers, Birthers, Armageddonites, Vaccine Hysterics, Hollywood Know-Nothings, and Internet Addicts

* * *


Jonathan Kay's Among the Truthers: "It All Ties in to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!!!!"

"You can't defeat the Enlightenment's enemies unless you understand them. And that is the project I ask my readers to embark on as they read this book. Those of us who continue to adhere to the rationalist tradition must commit to its defense." - Jonathan Kay, whose book abjures rationalism and instead offers a hodge-podge of ad-hominems against those with whom he disagrees.

* * *

Jonathan Kay's Among the Truthers is either one of the worst, most slipshod books ever written, or a masterpiece of high comedy. Read at two levels -- one for Straussian initiates, the other for the rubes -- Kay's book outwardly poses as an unhinged diatribe against "conspiricism." Beneath the surface, however, it can be interpreted as a viciously brilliant self-parody whose implications are as dark and unsettling as its superficial message is conventional.*

Kay's book strings together a vast agglomeration of unrelated or loosely-related phenomena: deconstruction, identity politics, the rise of the internet and the birth of youtube, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Marxism, evangelical Christianity and its end-times obsession, jihadi videos, Jewish conservatism, Voltaire and the Enlightenment, St. John the Revelator, racism and anti-racism, globalization and anti-globalization, Zionism and anti-Zionism, pop psychology, pro- and anti-Obama polemics, Kay's unhappy experiences with black people at Yale Law School, and a whole lot more, including just about every major historical controversy that has gotten traction in mass culture (as well as more than a few minor ones).

The book's organization follows the random jumbling of non-sequiturs method, as exemplified by its division into the three sections: "Part One: The Truth Movement and Its Ancestors. Part Two: Meet the Truthers. Part Three: Accessories to Trutherdom." In fact, we randomly "meet the truthers" throughout the book, beginning with Ken Jenkins in Part One and continuing through myself among others in Part Three; similarly the historical overview is spread throughout, as is the discussion of what might be vaguely called "accessories" in all of that word's many senses.

Likewise, within each section, the chapters and paragraphs veer wildly from subject to subject, with little or no connecting thread other than Kay's apparent paranoiac belief that all of this seemingly unrelated material somehow illustrates his thesis: That the 9/11 truth movement is the most salient and dangerous manifestation of a horrific conspiracy to spread the "incurable disease" (p. 315) of "conspiracism," a dastardly evil whose "archetype" is the dreaded Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If Kay were in one of my college composition classes I would have him do a lot of remedial outlining work.

How can we explain Kay's lunatic attempt to lump everything in the universe and its opposite together in service to his paranoia? Was the ardently pro-Zionist author, whose only other book sings the praises of a heroic Canadian Mossad agent, unhinged by his discovery that any serious reconsideration of 9/11 leads inevitably to the discovery that Zionists, not Arabs, were the probable villains? We know from Jewish Studies professor Sandra Lubarsky's courageous essay in the volume I co-edited with her and John Cobb, 9/11 and American Empire v.2, that even the thought of possible Israeli involvement in 9/11 raises in her "the terrible desire that it never be true, for I fear the consequences it might have on American attitudes toward Judaism and Israel." (p.96). Could it be that what merely sparks this fear and "terrible desire" in a moderate, reflective, self-aware, principled pro-Zionist like Lubarsky might be enough to drive a fanatical Likkudnik like Kay insane?

While it might be a consolation to the many courageous and accomplished people slimed by Kay's ad hominems and occasional outright libels to imagine that their tormentor is clinically insane, another explanation suggests itself. What if Kay, who hangs around with neoconservatives, were actually following in the footsteps of neocon guru Leo Strauss, who advised his followers to lie in order to conceal their real beliefs, because the truth is too dangerous for the masses? Strauss told his followers to write at two levels: First, feed the public the myths and propaganda necessary to preserve social cohesion. Second, strew your silly middlebrow mythologies with subtle indications that gesture mutely toward the horrific truth: there is no truth or goodness or justice or God; crime usually pays; and the wise criminal who poses as a good man -- the "pious fraud" i.e. the smart Straussian -- always rises to the top. 

Is this what Kay is doing in Among the Truthers? Does he expect the general public to be taken in by his superficial and disjointed diatribe against "conspiracy theorists," while reserving for careful readers the pleasure of discovering the method in his madness?

Straussian neoconservatives reveal their true intentions to the few, while hiding them from the masses, by carefully setting up apparent contradictions in their texts.** By placing a seeming contradiction right at the heart of their text, they can make the whole thing say -- to initiates -- the exact opposite of what it appears to say. Kay seems to do this by covertly undermining his book's core claim: That its purpose is to stand as a heroic defense of rational-empirical discourse.

As the book's thesis statement, blown up and pasted on the back cover, puts it:

"You can't defeat the Enlightenment's enemies unless you understand them. And that is the project I ask my readers to embark on as they read this book. Those of us who continue to adhere to the rationalist tradition must commit to its defense."

Yet throughout his 340-page "defense of rationalist tradition" Kay neglects to offer a single rational argument against the core claims of the 9/11 truth movement -- or any of the dozens of other historical claims, good, bad and ugly, that he strings together seemingly at random. Instead, he simply engages in ad hominem attacks, ranging from condescending to vitriolic to downright libelous, against a few of the many people who have espoused these arguments: David Ray Griffin is a crank, Richard Gage is having a midlife crisis, Ken Jenkins is a hippie, Mike Ruppert is crazy, and Kevin Barrett is a drooling anti-Semite who lives in two places at once, got his Ph.D. seven years before he got his Ph.D., and believes a long list of crazy things that he doesn't believe and has said a long list of crazy things that he never said.

Kay's method is, to say the least, highly irrational. The rational position on "conspiracy theories" is, of course, Michael Moore's: "I'm not interested in conspiracy theories, except the ones that are true." In other words, any "defense of rationalist tradition" that considered topics like 9/11, political assassinations, and similar historical controversies would begin by sorting the sheep from the goats -- that is, by ranking the various controversial assertions according to (A) their importance if they were true, and (B) probability that they are true, based on the rational consideration of empirical evidence. Any assertion that would be very important if it were true, and whose truth is supported by strong evidence -- such as the assertion that the 9/11 Commission Report and the Warren Report are so egregiously faulty as to raise painful questions about the health or even existence of American democracy -- would presumably earn high marks.

While painting his whole book as a defense of rationality, Kay actually admits that he cannot win a rational argument against 9/11 truth, even against a relatively unsophisticated opponent: "I'll admit to feeling personally humbled by my failure to get the best of conspiracy theorists: What was the use in going through the official 9/11 report with a highlighter and Post-it notes, much less writing a whole book on the subject of Trutherdom, if I couldn't win an argument with a single college student? But on a more fundamental level, I also felt disillusioned by what this experience taught me about the limits of intellectual discourse itself." (p. 314).

Kay's apparent contempt for the very rationalism ("intellectual discourse") he pretends to defend is evidenced in his assertions about me, which go beyond mere libelousness into the realm of the bizarre.

On page 167 Kay tells his readers: "Minnesota-based Muslim convert Kevin Barrett, for instance, tells his Truther audiences that Osama Bin Laden could never have been behind 9/11 because the al-Qaeda leader embodies his religion's dedication to 'peace and truth.'"*

If Kay had bothered to make a fact-checking call or email to me, he could have learned that not only have I never lived in Minnesota, but that I have never said anything remotely like this. (Kay offers no citation backing his claim that I made this bizarre statement.) In fact, for the first two years after 9/11, I thought that Bin Laden or other Muslim jihadis were very likely involved in 9/11. And unlike Sandra Lubarsky, I had no "terrible fear" that made me wish it weren't so. I could have easily lived with believing al Qaeda had done it. Had I not discovered the overwhelming empirical evidence against the al-Qaeda-did-it thesis, I would probably be happily teaching literature and Islamic studies at some American university, bothered very little by the thought that a handful of fellow Muslims could have been misguided enough to take bloody revenge for the Palestinian holocaust, the murder of half a million Muslims in Iraq, and a long list of other atrocities. For while Islam does indeed value peace and truth very highly, it also values lesser jihad, or armed struggle in defense of the community against aggression; I have never denied that Muslims sometimes engage in armed struggle, and make many of the same mistakes as other human beings who engage in armed struggle.

When Kay launches into his main diatribe against me (p. 286-289) he continues to get things egregiously wrong. He begins by claiming that I was born into a "Midwestern Lutheran family." In fact, Lutheranism was, to the best of my recollection, the one branch of Christianity that nobody on either my father's or mother's side was ever involved with! (My parents are best described as lapsed Unitarians -- which is about as lapsed as it gets.) If I were a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I would imagine that Kay's Mossad handlers did a background check on me, discovered that somebody in my extended family was a member or lapsed member of practically every Christian denomination except Lutheranism, and decided to attribute a Lutheran background to me as some kind of warped practical joke.***

Kay then says I converted to Islam in 1992. In fact it was 1993, which I suppose is close enough. But his claim that I converted "after marrying a Moroccan-born Muslim woman" (my italics) is not just false but offensive and potentially damaging, since according to Islamic principles I had to be Muslim before marrying her. This amounts to an accusation that my wife violated a very serious point of Islamic law by marrying a non-Muslim. Kay's false statement, were it widely disseminated and believed, would seriously damage my reputation, and my family's reputation, in the Muslim community.

After falsely having me marrying and then converting in 1992, Kay says that I earned my Ph.D. five years later, which would be 1997. Alas, in reality, I did not earn my Ph.D. until 2004. While unlike most of Kay's false statements about me, this one is in itself not defamatory, it does illustrate his reckless neglect of even the bare minimum standards of fact-checking.

Kay goes on to claim that I remained at the University of Wisconsin as a lecturer after allegedly earning my Ph.D. in 1997 until I "created an uproar by publicly insisting that Muslims weren't involved in the World Trade Center attacks" in 2006. By claiming that after I earned my Ph.D. I spent nine years hanging around the same university as a lecturer, Kay misrepresents my career path in a pejorative light. In fact, after earning my Ph.D. in 2004 (not 1997), I earned what I was told was the most prestigious offer anyone had received in the history of my department -- a prized University of California post-doc, which I turned down because it would have involved studying immigrant Muslim activities under the auspices of the CIA-linked Ford Foundation. (I stuck around Madison as a lecturer in 2005 and 2006 in order to focus on 9/11 truth activism, and was successful beyond my wildest expectations.)

But I cannot claim credit for that success. Contrary to Kay's false statement, it was not me who "created an uproar" in Madison. The uproar was entirely the creation of State Rep. Steve Nass, whose call to have me fired from my UW-Madison teaching job made us both front-page news. Prior to Rep. Nass's highly-publicized vendetta against me, I had been simultaneously teaching and doing 9/11 truth activism without any "uproar" from anyone; in fact, not one of the many colleagues with whom I discussed 9/11 truth during that period overtly disagreed with my contention that the 9/11 Report was a joke and that the best evidence suggested a false-flag operation. Nor were my Folklore 101 students, including the grandson of conservative Repubican former governor Lee Dreyfuss, discomfited by the way I spent a few days looking at the 9/11 controversies in that class. In short, I made no effort to create any uproar, nor did I create one.

Look at how Kay characterizes his claim that I "created an uproar":

(In 1997 [sic], Barrett) "earned a Ph.D. in African languages and literature at the University of Wisconsin, where he remained employed as a lecturer until he created an uproar by publicly insisting that Muslims weren't involved in the World Trade Center attacks. ("Every single Muslim I know in Madison knew it was an inside job!")

The clear implication is that I publicly stated the exact words "Every single Muslim I know in Madison knew it was an inside job!" as evidence for my contention that Muslims weren't involved in the World Trade Center attacks, and that these exact words "created an uproar." Kay offers no source for my alleged public statement of these words, which portray me as such an idiot that I would offer what people think as empirical evidence to prove a historical point.

In fact, when I have pointed out that virtually all my Muslim acquaintances were right about 9/11 from the get-go, it has always been as part of an admission that I was wrong, rather than as an attempt to argue from popular opinion. The accurate quote: "From 2001 to 2003, I was practically the only Muslim in the area who didn't think it was an inside job." Saying this has never had anything to do with creating any uproar. Kay's sentences are false in so many ways, on so many levels, that disentangling and disinfecting the multiple strands of falsehood is like cleaning the Aegean stables.

Kay then asserts that I was arrested for "domestic abuse" (actually, misdemeanor disorderly conduct) and pled not guilty without mentioning that the charges were dropped without any conditions -- which is almost unheard of in Wisconsin domestic cases -- because those charges were shown to be false. When a Wisconsin domestic-related case is dropped without the accused having to do any domestic violence counseling, the person has basically been certified as a non-abuser seven ways from Sunday. Such an outcome, rare as it is, is a far stronger indication of innocence than even an acquittal. Kay apparently knows, as do other smear artists, that publishing the fact that a person has been arrested, without mentioning that that person was acquitted or otherwise found innocent, is a time-tested way to attack a person's reputation based on false allegations.

Kay's attack goes on:

"...he's...run a fringe campaign for Congress, hosted conspiracist radio programs, launched a series of ugly feuds with competing conspiracists, and started up a creepy website that publishes the home addresses of police officers and other government officials 'who are alleged to have seriously abused their power over others.'"

Look at the adjectives: fringe, conspiracist, ugly, creepy. No agenda here! And once again, the facts are egregiously, libelously wrong. I have never launched an attack on a fellow 9/11 truth-seeker. Yes, a couple of ardent Zionists in the 9/11 truth movement launched feuds against me -- they hate me for the same reason Kay does, because I don't share their fanatical devotion to Israel -- but in no case did I respond in kind to their vicious attacks until, in every case, months or years after the attacks had begun.  Nor did I "start up" a website of the kind Kay describes. As far as I know, no such website ever published any addresses of police officers and other government officials. At the urging of Rev. Frank Morales, a Christian minister who has successfully changed NYPD policy by organizing demonstrations outside the homes of rogue cops, I did once float the idea of launching a nonviolence movement, in the footsteps of Gandhi, that would demonstrate peacefully outside the homes of those who ought to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity, but who currently enjoy impunity. That idea, as far as I know, never came to fruition; but it is a good one, and I do hope that someone picks it up and runs with it.

Kay continues:

"Barrett began his presentation at St. Mark's by arguing that the involvement of Muslims in the 9/11 operation would be an impossibility, since the tenets of Islam are incompatible with any sort of unprovoked violence."  

Obviously, neither I nor any remotely rational person would ever make such a ludicrous argument. People violate the tenets of their religion all the time. I believed Muslims were probably involved in 9/11 for the two years after the attacks, and only changed my mind when forced to by irrefutable empirical evidence. Also, the idea that I would characterize an extremist Muslim attack on America as "unprovoked" is laughable, given the long history of US atrocities against Muslims, including the fact that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admitted that she thought murdering half a million Iraqi children was "worth it." 

Kay's false statements about my St. Marks talk run wild:  "Nor can we trust the official 9/11 commission, Barrett says, since its executive director, Philip Zelikow, is an 'ethnic Jew.'"  The idea that I would not want an "ethnic Jew" to head the 9/11 Commission is ludicrous; among my first choices would have been Paul Wellstone, Barbara Boxer, or Russ Feingold, the three bravest Senators who resisted the 9/11 perps' agenda -- and all three Senators happen to be Jewish.

Obviously I did not say that the only reason to mistrust the 9/11 Commission was Zelikow's ethnicity! My position is that the 9/11 Commission Report is a tissue of lies, big lies, and bigger lies, as everyone from critic David Ray Griffin to the Commission's own co-chairs has shown/admitted. Research by Dr. Griffin and other scholars and journalists has shown that Philip Zelikow was essentially the sole author of the Report, which he had drafted in outline before the Commission hearings began. Dr. Zelikow's self-reported area of expertise is the "creation and maintenance of public myths." The kind of "public myth" he creates and maintains, he explains, are like unto the tale of the  "dastardly and unprovoked Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor," i.e. stories widely believed to be true even though they may not be, that exert a searing or moulding effect on both the experiencing generation and subsequent generations. Dr. Zelikow, apparently blessed with precognitive ability, published a 1998 Foreign Affairs article speculating on the likely social, psychological, political and cultural effects of a massive Pearl-Harbor-style terrorist attack in the US such as the destruction of the World Trade Center. One wonders whether he wrote the outline of the "public myth" that became the 9/11 Commission Report before 2001, and whether it served as the script for the Hollywood-style special effects show that transpired on 9/11.

Given the above (and much more) Philip Zelikow is, to say the least, a person of interest to anyone seeking the real perpetrators of 9/11. So what is his background? He is a neoconservative and, like Kay, a fanatical partisan of Israel. The fact that Zelikow, like Kay, is Jewish and a fanatical Jewish nationalist (i.e. a Zionist) is obviously relevant. If a fanatical Saudi-American Muslim named Abdul-Azziz Jones presided over a report falsely accusing Zionist Jews of a mass murder actually carried out by Saudi intelligence, the fact that Mr. A.A. Jones was Muslim and Saudi would be equally relevant. If, in this scenario, someone called attention to the fact that A.A. Jones was a fanatical Muslim Saudi, would that person necessarily be an islamophobe? Of course not! So am I anti-Semitic for thinking Zelikow's fanatical Jewish nationalism is a factor in the 9/11 cover-up? Look at what Zelikow himself admitted about the 9/11 - triggered war on Iraq:

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.   "And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow. http://www.rense.com/general50/warforisrael.htm

Kay continues to lob buckets of slime in my general direction, without bothering to research his "facts," when he accuses me of being "that rare breed: a left-wing Holocaust skeptic" (p. 288). In fact, I am neither left-wing nor a Holocaust skeptic. I ran for congress as a Libertarian, a party that is generally identified with the right, and my politics cannot be categorized as left or right. And if "Holocaust skeptic"means someone who doubts or denies the gist of the standard European account of the German mass murders of communists, Jews, slavs, gypsies, the handicapped, and so on during World War II, I am not one.  As I wrote to the European Jewish Chronicle, which cited Kay's book:

To the Jewish Chronicle,  

It has come to my attention that JC writer David Aaronovitch libeled me in a recent article. Aaronivitch characterizes my views on the Nazi holocaust in a false and defamatory manner when he wrote: "(Richard) Gage himself has appeared on a US radio programme hosted by one Kevin Barrett, who has described the Holocaust as a 'destructive myth.'"    

Aaronovitch either recklessly or intentionally neglected to mention that when I speak of the Holocaust as a myth, I always make it clear that I am using the scholarly sense of the word myth (sacred narrative) rather than the vernacular sense (lie, false account). Additionally, I have on literally hundreds of occasions made statements that make it clear that I do not dispute the gist of the standard Western historical account of German mass murders of Gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, communists, handicapped people, slavs, and so on during World War II.  What I object to is the way this historical narrative has been made sacred (i.e. a myth) and used to justify the invasion, occupation, and ethnic cleansing of Palestine -- despite the fact that the Palestinians had nothing to do with the Germans' crimes. One might as well turn the firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo and other cities, and the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, into a sacred myth justifying the mass murder and expulsion of the natives of India to make way for the Germans and Japanese. 

By falsely implying that I deny the standard account of these Nazi murders, Aaronivitch commits libel. Indeed, he accuses me of a speech act that is a crime in many Western European countries, including some I traveled through shortly before he published his libel!    I look forward to an apology from the editors and Mr. Aaronovitch.  

Sincerely

Kevin Barrett

* * *

Needless to say, I am still looking forward to that apology.

When I wrote the letter, I had not yet read Kay's book, and did not know that the Jewish Chronicle was citing a quote in it that was falsely attributed to me. Yes, I have occasionally pointed out that the Holocaust is a "myth" in the sense of a sacred narrative, and yes, I do believe its effects -- including the Palestinian genocide -- have been destructive. But it turns out that the JC was using a quote from a bogus source -- quoting something I had never said.

Kay's "evidence" that I am a "Holocaust skeptic" consists of a paragraph that a crazy stalker named Mark Rabinowitz claims was in an email I sent him many years ago. Rabinowitz -- a minor-league political paranoid who harassed me briefly in 2005 about my anti-Zionism, and against whom I nearly had to take out a restraining order -- has never produced any evidence that the paragraph he attributes to me actually was in an email I sent him; nor do I remember writing that paragraph. I am reasonably certain that the paragraph was either altered or invented out of whole cloth by Rabinowitz, since it mentions three alleged "holocaust deniers" named "Green, Irving, and Zundel" about whom I knew nothing at the time, and still know very little. (I still don't know who this "Green" person is, though Kay helpfully informs us that the first name is "Mark.") So here I stand, accused of supporting "holocaust deniers" whose names I barely recognize, based on a false claim posted by a nobody on his obscure personal website. Strangely enough, this completely baseless libel proved impossible to remove from Wikipedia despite repeated efforts, and has now found its way into Kay's widely-published book. Time for a libel suit? Will I soon be the proud owner of Wikipedia and HarperCollins?

From his attack on me, which offers many more false and/or defamatory statements than I care to inflict on the reader, Kay segués in his usual non-sequitur style into a rambling rant about the long and terrible history of anti-Semitism, which (he claims) is the reason for "the anti-Zionists' obsessive focus on the victims of Israeli counterterrorist operations, while ignoring the terrorist provocations that led to them." In other words, throughout the history of the Zionist invasion of Palestine, the 95% of the murders and maimings and kidnappings that are attributable to the Zionists are just "counterterrorist operations," while the 5% attributable to the Palestinians are "terrorist provocations." That's a lot like saying that any Jews who killed Nazis while resisting the holocaust were terrorists, since the Final Solution was just a big counterterrorist operation.

Kay claims that the statement that Israel "deliberately targets Palestinian children playing on roofs" is a "blood libel" (p. 299). His statement must be knowingly false, since I sent him a copy of an article in the prestigious British Medical Journal (10/16/04) which concluded: “Two thirds of the 621 children (two thirds under 15 years) killed at checkpoints,  in the street,  on the way to school,  in their homes,  died from small arms fire,  directed in over half of cases to the head,  neck and chest—the sniper's wound. Clearly,  soldiers are routinely authorised to shoot to kill children in situations of minimal or no threat.” Along with the BMJ article, I sent him Chris Hedges' Harper’s magazine article "Gaza Diary" (October 2001) in which Hedges graphically reports that he had been in several war zones,  but he had never seen soldiers luring children within range of their guns,  then gut-shooting them for sport,  until he saw Israeli soldiers doing it in the Occupied Territories.

Does Kay, whose book participates in the cover-up of these child murders, as well as the millions of murders of 9/11 and the 9/11 wars, end his book with a final veiled tip of his cap to the guru of the neocon big lie, Leo Strauss, by way of a quote from Voltaire?

"An atheist, provided he be sure of impunity so far as man is concerned, reasons and acts consistently in being dishonest, ungrateful, a slanderer, a robber, and a murderer. For if there is no God, this monster is his own god, and sacrifices to his purposes whatever he desires and whatever serves as an obstacle in his path. The most moving entreaties, the most cogent arguments have no more effect upon him than on a wolf thirsting for blood." (p. 326).

For atheist, substitute Straussian. Leo Strauss, the guru of Kay's neconservative friends, an atheist and self-professed "teacher of evil," taught his students to be pious frauds, wolves in sheep's clothing, who realize that brute force and hatred, not "cogent arguments," rule the world. The ideal Straussian is indeed "his own god, and sacrifices to his purposes whatever he desires and whatever serves as an obstacle in his path." And since Strauss and his students are fanatical Zionists, they sacrifice to their own purposes whatever they desire (including the World Trade Center and the truth), dispense with rational argumentation, and write dishonest books full of ingratitude to those who helped them, slandering some of the world's very best people, robbing their readers of their reason while pretending to defend Reason, and participating in the coverup of mass murder if not the act itself.

Is Jonathan Kay this kind of Straussian? Has he written a discombobulated book, peppered with outrageous falsehoods, whose only connecting thread is an obsession with anti-Semitism in general and the Protocols in particular, as an esoteric parody of the worst sort of conspiracism? Is his real message that reason and truth are feeble, while the kind of emotion-based character-assassination he indulges in is a far more effective political tool? Is he telling his fellow Zionist Straussians to get out there and win the fight with lies, murder, slander...whatever it takes? Is he telling his readers "Whatever you do, do not use reason and evidence to look at the facts about 9/11! Instead, hurl insults at those who do!" And is he performing this ritual sacrifice of goodness and truth and reason under the smokescreen of an ironic hymn to the glory of reason itself?

Alas, the answer is almost certainly "no." Jonathan Kay is no evil genius. As Gordon Duff said on my radio show, Jonathan Kay is a "lightweight." He even seems to be a fairly nice guy, despite his propensity for libel. I think his nastiness and 9/11 denial are driven by deep unconscious fear, not conscious ill will. In fact, I cannot help but feel the same sort of "affection" (with more than a tinge of condescension) for him that he claims to feel for his victims.

# # #


Notes


*Despite Kay's association with Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the successor organization to PNAC, I do not think he is a scheming Straussian, nor do I think his book is a conscious parody. Instead, I think he is driven by a largely unconscious fear of anti-Semitism, which has developed into something approaching full-blown paranoia: his conspiracy theory that all conspiracy theories are part of a immense plot at the heart of which is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But it's more fun to read his book as if it were consciously rather than unconsciously parodying itself.

**See Shadia Drury's books on Strauss and neoconservatism. Or read Strauss himself if you have a lot of time on your hands, a high threshold of tolerance for bad writing, and a strong stomach.

*** Please do not miss the point that I am NOT a paranoid anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, and I do NOT believe any such background check was ever conducted. I know perfectly well that Kay is just a paranoid & sloppy researcher and thinker. This whole review is based on a conceit (not my actual belief) that he's a brilliant, scheming, Machievellian-Straussian Mossad agent.

Here's How I Teach About 9/11

* * * 

from the New York Times:

How Do You Teach About 

9/11?

DESCRIPTION 

We need your help.

Have you taught about Sept. 11 and its repercussions? Do you plan to address the 10th anniversary of the attacks this September? How? Does your school, district, state or country have a suggested curriculum? What questions, in general, does teaching this topic raise for you?... (full article at http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/how-do-you-teach-about-911/ )

* * *


Here is what I submitted to the New York Times:

In 2005, I introduced the 9/11 controversies into my Folklore class at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and in 2006 I spent one week of a 16-week Introduction to Islam course considering various perspectives on 9/11 and the "war on terror," including the perspective of roughly 80% of the world's Muslims that 9/11 was a false-flag operation presumably orchestrated by US and Israeli insiders. (This is the perspective of roughly half the world's population, as shown by polls including this one: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/535.php , as well as of the majority of peer-reviewed scholarship that addresses the controversy.) For simply including that Muslim-majority perspective, which I happen to share, I was singled out for attack by State Representative Steve Nass. Due to publicity surrounding Nass's attack on me, I was told, the Engineering School lost half a million dollars in canceled contributions.

Blacklisted from the University of Wisconsin for political reasons, I have had to continue teaching by other means.  I now work as an author, radio host and nonprofit organizer, and have lectured on 9/11 across the US and in Europe, North Africa, and Asia, where I have found the majority of citizens seem share the 9/11 truth perspective: as many as 89% of Germans, according to a recent poll, do not believe the US official version. (The world record holder for 9/11 skepticism is Pakistan, where only 3% of the people believe al-Qaeda did it: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/346.php ).

On my radio show, I regularly interview guests who are university professors and bring 9/11 truth into their classrooms. A good example is yesterday's interview with philosophy professor David Skrbina of the University of Michigan. http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-072011.mp3  For a list of 400 professors who support the 9/11 truth movement, see http://www.PatriotsQuestion911.com .

I am not sure why the New York Times and most of the rest of the US media report only one side of a controversy in which about half the world's people, and the vast majority of scholars who have examined both sides, support the other side. Nor do I understand why the media have failed to inform the public that the vast majority of the peer-reviewed scholarly literature on the controversy supports the claim that 9/11 was a false-flag operation. It is virtually certain that this information will be widely accepted within a decade or two -- but by then God knows how many millions of people will have died due to the 9/11 big lie. The blood of those millions of people will be on the hands of the media (and the "educators") that participated in this horrendous deception.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Kay vs. Barrett: The knock-down, drag out heavyweight 9/11 truth battle of the century?

[I will be interviewing Jonathan Kay, who savages me in his book Among the Truthers, on The Kevin Barrett Show this Thursday, July 21st, 8 to 9 pm Pacific (11 to midnight Eastern) on NoLiesRadio.org. The show will then be archived here.]


Gordon Duff thinks Jonathan Kay is a "lightweight."*

But as anti-9/11-truth polemicists go, Kay is one of the contenders for the heavyweight title.

So far as I know, there are only four books, and one peer-reviewed mainstream article, that attack or attempt to refute the 9/11 truth movement. (Compare that to the dozens of excellent pro-9/11-truth books, three of them peer reviewed and put out by major university presses, and the many more dozens of first-rate pro-9/11-truth articles, dozens of which are peer-reviewed and/or in mainstream journals or major university press books.**)

The four anti-truth books are:

(1) Popular Mechanics' Debunking the 9/11 Myths (the culmination of a project launched by Zionist-extremist Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff's cousin).

(2) Matt Taibbi's The Great Derangement.

(3) Pro-Israeli propagandist David Aaronovitch's Voodoo Histories.

(4) Jonathan Kay's brand new Among the Truthers: A Journey into the Growing Conspiracist Underground of 9/11 Truthers, Birthers, Armageddonites, Vaccine Hysterics, Hollywood Know-Nothings, and Internet Addicts.

Taibbi may be a better writer, but I think Kay's ponderous title alone makes him a presumptive shoo-in for the heavyweight crown.

Kay's book is a rambling ad-hominem attack against the 9/11 truth movement in general, and selected 9/11 truth luminaries in particular. I have the pleasure of reporting that I am tied with Ken Jenkins, only slightly behind Mike Ruppert, and just barely ahead of David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage, as the most-discussed 9/11 truth leader in Kay's book.***  I think I am safe in calling myself the most intensively vilified (indeed the most egregiously libeled) of the book's cast of characters.

I am tempted to say that Kay deserves consideration for the Larry Silverstein Chutzpah Award -- for telling so many stinking lies about me, and then having the unmitigated audacity to come on my radio show ; - )   Seriously, I think it argues well for Kay's courage and sincerity that he is willing to have a public conversation with me. Were he to refuse to do so, I would be inclined to view Among the Truthers as one gigantic Straussian ignoble lie. (Yes, I think that sincere Straussians, if that isn't an oxymoron, could very well struggle to keep the lid on 9/11 for the "greater good" of Israel and/or the US empire...but I will extend to Kay the courtesy of assuming that he is sincere in his apparent inability to rationally weigh the facts of 9/11 and draw the obvious conclusions.)

Why I am extending this courtesy to Kay I'm not sure. He certainly did not extend the same sort of courtesy to me. On the contrary, he seems to have assumed my bad intentions; and he makes so many errors of fact and judgment in his discussion of me -- errors that could easily have been corrected by a few minutes of research -- that I almost wonder if he isn't part of a benevolent conspiracy to discredit his own book, and give the 9/11 truth movement a shot in the arm, by setting himself up for the mother of all libel suits.

In any case, he's a brave man to wade into the ring with me.

So, get a ringside seat! Tune in to NoLiesRadio.org this Thursday at 10 pm Central (8 pm Pacific, 11 pm Eastern) and get ready for some rock 'em sock 'em 9/11 truth action.

# # #

Notes:

* Gordon said that near the end of last night's radio show.

** Books: Paul Zarempka (ed.), The Hidden History of 9/11 (published by Elsevier, Europe's leading scholarly publisher); Anthony Hall's Earth Into Property (published by Mcgill University Press, a leading Canadian academic house); and Peter Dale Scott's The Road to 9/11 (published by one of the top US academic publishers, University of California Press).  Articles: Many excellent scholarly articles from a pro-9/11 truth perspective can be found in Zarembka's book, the Feb. 2010 issue of American Behavioral Scientist, and the Journal of 9/11 Studies.  Several pro-9/11-truth scientific articles have been published in mainstream scientific journals, including Harrit and co-authors' nanothermite paper, and Jones and co-authors' Fourteen Points of Agreement. And no survey of the literature would be complete without mentioning the eight magisterial books and countless articles of the unofficial Dean of 9/11 Studies, David Ray Griffin. Taken together, this amounts to a formidable scholarly literature debunking the official account of 9/11. There exists nothing remotely as impressive -- in fact, there is essentially nothing serious whatsoever -- arguing against the pro-9/11-truth case and defending the official version. 

* * * According to the index, Kay devotes fourteen pages to Ruppert, twelve pages to me, twelve to Ken Jenkins, eleven to Richard Gage, ten to David Ray Griffin.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Alan Sabrosky's Shocking Press TV Interview

Don't miss this great Press TV interview of Alan Sabrosky! I'm happy that Press TV and Russia Today keep stealing my guests ; - )

My latest Sabrosky interview is archived here.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

I will be interviewed on Talk Radio Europe today [correction: will be rescheduled]

[Note: This interview is being rescheduled due Richie's illness...stay tuned for details.]

I'm looking forward to an interview by Richie Allen on Talk Radio Europe today at 2 pm Central.

We'll be talking about the upcoming 10th anniversary of the 9/11 coup d'état, and related matters.

I'll also be discussing my reaction to Jonathan Kay's book Among the Truthers, which finally arrived in the mail (postmarked June 27th -- remember, he originally said he'd be sending one in April, and needed to be reminded several times after that).

I wonder if one reason he was reluctant to send me the book was the fact that it libels me? I will be seeking legal advice as well as engaging with Jonathan in another interview (listen to our first one here)...assuming he's got the guts to square off with someone he's libeled.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

My letter to the Jewish Chronicle


(emailed today to editorial@thejc.com, letters@thejc.com)

To the Jewish Chronicle,

It has come to my attention that JC writer David Aaronovitch libeled me a recent article.

Aaronivitch characterized my views on the Nazi holocaust in a false and defamatory manner when he wrote: "(Richard) Gage himself has appeared on a US radio programme hosted by one Kevin Barrett, who has described the Holocaust as a 'destructive myth.'"  

Aaronovitch either recklessly or intentionally neglected to mention that when I speak of the Holocaust as a myth, I always make it clear that I am using the scholarly sense of the word myth (sacred narrative) rather than the vernacular sense (lie, false account). Additionally, I have on literally hundreds of occasions made statements that make it clear that I do not dispute the gist of the standard Western historical account of German mass murders of Gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, communists, handicapped people, slavs, and so on during World War II.  What I object to is the way this historical narrative has been made sacred (i.e. a myth) and used to justify the invasion, occupation, and ethnic cleansing of Palestine - despite the fact that the Palestinians had nothing to do with the Germans' crimes. One might as well turn the firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo and other cities, and the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, into a sacred myth justifying the mass murder and expulsion of the natives of India to make way for the Germans and Japanese.

By falsely implying that I deny the standard account of these Nazi murders, Aaronivitch commits libel. Indeed, he accuses me of a speech act that is a crime in many Western European countries, including some I traveled through shortly before he published his libel! 

I look forward to an apology from the editors and Mr. Aaronovitch.

Sincerely

Dr. Kevin Barrett

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Burn It! Shred It! Compost It! DESTROY THE "9/11 COMMISSION REPORT" at the 9/11 Myth Destruction Picnic Friday, July 22nd!

 Matt Naus will discuss the upcoming 9/11 Myth Destruction Picnic on Truth Jihad Radio Wednesday, July 12th, 1 to 1:30 p.m. (followed by Susan Lindauer on Libya till 2, then Methodist minister James Wall, former Editor and current Contributing Editor of Christian Century Magazine, from 2 to 3).

*  *  *

 What's the best way to destroy an evil, poisonous myth?

One method: Prove that it isn't true.

The 9/11 truth movement has long since done that. At this late date, anybody who thinks WTC-7 came straight down in 6.5 seconds from a few modest fires and a hitherto-unknown phenomenon called "thermal expansion" may as well still believe in Santa Claus.

The problem is, empirical truth isn't enough. In fact, it isn't really the issue. Myths (sacred narratives) work in a realm of symbolism, image, and emotion. Trying to knock out a pernicious myth with critical reason and empirical fact is a little bit like trying to slow down an approaching fifty-foot tidal wave by shining a flashlight at it.

9/11 was the biggest symbolic event ever; it walloped collective human emotions much more powerfully than any other event in history. To undo its evil effects, we need to channel a whole lot of symbolic/emotional power against it.

And that is what the 9/11 Myth Destruction Picnic does.

The 9/11 Myth Destruction Picnic is the brainchild of Matt Naus, who shares with Lou Stolzenberg the the unofficial title as Wisconsin's most dedicated, hardest-working 9/11 truth activist.

Matt participated in the 2006 - 2007 Boston Tea Parties for 9/11 Truth, during which gargantuan effigies of the 9/11 Commission Report were thrown into Boston Harbor. (These events launched the Tea Party movement, for better or worse...)

The problem with the Boston Tea Party for truth was: Who wants to do an outdoor event in December?

So Matt said: Why not destroy the 9/11 Commission Report, and the myth it embodies, on the anniversary of its publication...which happens to be July 22nd?

The fun part: Thinking up ways to destroy the accurséd book!  Matt suggests: "1) shred it and add the shredded paper with some animal waste, like from a bull, into a compost mixture 2) tar & feather it 3) drill holes in it 4) barbeque it 5) pretend to pee on it (we don't want to violate any laws) we'll fill a long balloon with Mellow Yellow and then poke a pin size hole in the balloon squirting out the Mellow Yellow and make it look like we are pissing on it."

Matt's Milwaukee picnic starts at 1 pm and continues till dusk. It will take place Friday, July 22nd, at Juneau Park 801 N. Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee. 

I urge everyone to hold their own 9/11 Myth Destruction Picnic on Friday, July 22nd, 2011 -- the seventh anniversary of the emergence of the foul and putrid Report from the south end of a north-facing bull owned by self-proclaimed mythologist Philip Zelikow.


Since 9/11's tenth anniversary is fast approaching, the media should be hungry for interesting, colorful stories of the way people are commemorating the biggest event of the century. Send out press releases announcing the Myth Destruction Picnic just in case there is an honest news outlet in your area. (If you live in a small town or rural area, the odds are pretty good.)


* * *


And speaking of myths, a certain "f---g scumbag" named David Aaronovitch (that's what he claims Ian Henshall called him, and hey, if it fits, wear it) libeled me in the Jewish Chronicle two weeks ago by brutally ripping my words out of context in order to falsely characterize my views on the Nazi holocaust. Aaronivitch wrote: "(Richard) Gage himself has appeared on a US radio programme hosted by one Kevin Barrett, who has described the Holocaust as a 'destructive myth.'"

Aaronovitch either recklessly or intentionally neglected to mention that when I speak of the Holocaust as a myth, I always make it clear that I am using the scholarly sense of the word myth (sacred narrative) rather than the vernacular sense ("lie," false account). Additionally, I have on literally hundreds of occasions made statements that make it clear that I do not dispute the gist of the standard Western historical account of German mass murders of Gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, communists, handicapped people, slavs, and so on during World War II. In fact, I get all kinds of flak from people who DO dispute the standard account of these events, precisely because I do not.

By falsely implying that I deny the standard account of these Nazi murders, Aaronivitch commits libel. Indeed, he accuses me of a speech act that is a crime in many Western European countries, including some I traveled through shortly before he published his libel! 

I understand that the UK libel laws are much stronger than the American ones. Maybe it's time for Ian Henshall and I to find a good British lawyer.

Saturday, July 9, 2011

A little patriotic ditty celebrating the exploits of CIA terrorist Raymond Davis


CIA "secret agent man" Raymond Davis was arrested after murdering two Pakistanis. It turned out he had been organizing fake "Islamic extremist attacks," blowing up innocent people in mosques and markets. The US apparently forced Pakistan to release Davis by threatening to nuke them.

Here is a version of "Secret Agent Man" dedicated to Raymond Davis -- and the a-holes who sent him.

  

Helen Caldicott told me recently that men kill and blow things up out of sexual frustration. But Freud knew a century ago that aggression was anal, not sexual. The psychopathic control freaks who are destroying our planet often betray a certain constipated look, as if their efforts to control the world were really just an effort to control their sphincters.

Monday, July 4, 2011

Alan Sabrosky: We CAN bust Israel for 9/11 - here's how!

Alan Sabrosky will discuss his excellent new series of articles on the Kevin Barrett Show this Tuesday, July 5th, 9 - 10 a.m. Pacific (11 a.m.-noon Central) at NoLiesRadio.org (archived here a few hours after broadcast).

Read his new article Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake.

Then read Alan Sabrosky's article Israel’s Hidden Faces, A Long Day’s Night for Us All — an article based on the slideshow he is urging us to present to local veterans' organizations, as explained at the end of the interview transcribed below, which you can listen to at http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-031111.mp3 .

Also don't miss Sabrosky's orginal "coming out for 9/11 truth" interview from March, 2010 at radiodujour or on youtube here.

Barrett
Welcome to Truth Jihad Radio...My first hour guest is Dr. Alan Sabrosky, Ph.D. from the University of Michigan, the former Director of Studies of the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College...and he's well-known and in some quarters notorious (laughter) for laying it on the line and saying, "Hey, Mossad did 9/11, with some help from Cheney and Rumsfeld and those guys, but basically this was a Mossad operation." And there are people who just don't want to hear that. And you can imagine why. But I appreciate that kind of straightforward, pull-no-punches straight talk. Truth-telling, laying it on the line, telling it like it is...that's what I like, and that's why I like Dr. Alan Sabrosky. Welcome, Alan, to Truth Jihad Radio.

Sabrosky
Thank you Kevin, how are you doing?

Barrett
I'm doing well today, looking forward to this show. It's been awhile...was it about a year ago or so that you were last on?

Sabrosky
Yes it was, and it was entirely my fault. I had gone thirty years in a row without having any physical injuries, and then three in a row in a period of four months, ending up with a torn rotator cuff in my left shoulder, which is not a joy. It takes awhile to get back from that sort of thing. But yes, I'm back, you saw my latest article, and I have three more coming out over the next three weeks.

Barrett
That's fantastic. The print version (of the latest article) is in Veterans Today, quite an extraordinary veterans publication...what's with Veterans Today, Alan? You've been hanging around Gordon Duff and the people at Veterans Today for a while. How in the world did America's leading veterans' publication turn into such a strident 9/11 truth, and truth-telling in general, kind of operation?

Sabrosky
Well, first of all, I wouldn't say it's strident...

Barrett
Okay, that's the wrong adjective.

Sabrosky
Yeah, and it's not focusing on 9/11. It's actually an attempt and I'm going to say this as someone who, while I'm an editor, I have not been actively involved in the planning and structure of Veterans Today. But this is my impression: It's an attempt to bring together at least two of the major themes in the community that is in opposition to the whole host of Israeli-Zionist bits of militarism, activities, and actions. One is in the United States and mostly focused on 9/11. And although people might not like to hear this, for almost all Americans, even if they knew what the Israelis were doing to Palestine, most of them wouldn't care. They really wouldn't. They, like most other people, are mostly concerned with what is done to them. And that's 9/11, which is an open wound, and the wars that came from it. 

Internationally, it's the reverse. People there are obviously aware of 9/11, they understand the implications for the United States, but when I speak with friends in Germany or Britain or France  or various Latin American countries for them it's Palestine and Gaza. And 9/11 is sort of a secondary issue. And what I see in Veterans Today is a powerful set of writings, some by editors and more-or-less-regular contributors, others outside of it, who put both of them side by side. So that the readership of Veterans Today will get good arguments on 9/11, but they'll also get good arguments on Israeli policy and its manipulation of American governmental policy on Palestine and collateral issues. And that I think is important. 

Barrett
Very well-put. And as an American Muslim, I'm concerned with Palestine, I'm concerned with the US, I'm concerned with 9/11 it's an open wound in more ways than one for those of us who are Muslims and American citizens. And I'm also concerned with false-flag terror being blamed on Muslims everywhere you go. Everyone from Hosni Mubarak in Alexandria to DEA-CIA agent David Headley over in India...everywhere you go it seems that somebody's blowing something up and killing people and blaming Muslims. And I'm sick of it.

Sabrosky
Well...I certainly agree with you. And I think those of us who look at the issues understand the linkage between them. And when I say "those of us" I don't mean just you and me, I mean those of us in the community...I'm not going to use the word "activist" because I truly hate it. But those of us who are concerned about what America is in the world, the American place in the world, the extent to which Israelis dominate and manipulate American governmental policy...and whether it's manifested in a 9/11 cover-up, or a cover-up of their actions in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, or third parts of the world, we're aware of it. 

But the general public in any given country really isn't that differentiated. And if the information were there, if we said listen, we're going to really show you what the Israelis did in Cast Lead, most people would say "Yep, too bad" and get on with their lives. The thing that has been a constant concern of mine, and this with the "9/11 truth issue" as well as the general anti-Zionist perspective is that we have all been sort of like a gaggle of duck hunters standing in a circle, blasting birdshot outward and upward in a thousand different directions and on a thousand or more issues, in so much detail that not only do none of us really understand it, the general public in America and elsewhere doesn't even know that these are issues, and is hopelessly confused at best, and totally turned-off at worst. 

And that is the generic problem. It affects the 9/11 debate. It affects the debate on Gaza. It affects the debate on issues outside of that, as you mentioned. And there's an absence of focus. There's an absence of a sense of what German strategists called the Schwerpunkt: the strategic center of gravity. And it's on that that we need to focus. And none of us is really doing that. And when I say "us" I'm including myself. And I have been trying, in part with the piece I sent off to you, and more specifically in the ones that are coming after that, to try to develop a kind of strategic focus. And I believe I've done that.  There is a little syllogism that I have come up with that I think really explains this, or at least explains it to me and that may be a sign of my lack of understanding but it goes something like this:

The gate to containing Israeli ambitions, and to uncovering Israeli crimes, and thus saving Palestine, is in the United States, and not in Jerusalem or Gaza or Ramallah. And second, the lock to that gate is not in Washington DC or New York City, which are the centers of Zionist power, but in the heartland of the United States where they're generally weak. And third: The key to that gate is 9/11.

That is the issue. And not all the other issues that people talk about: Academic freedom on the campuses yes, it's important, but it's not the core issue. 9/11 is the Schwerpunkt of this entire exercise. This is the one that turns the United States around in its approach to the world. This is the one that's an open wound. This, and the wars which came from it, are the ones that concern Americans today. Bodies don't come home in coffins because of a lack of academic freedom or the suppression of Norman Finklestein. Bodies come home because of the wars. The wars evolved from 9/11. Pin 9/11 on the Israelis, and this entire exercise begins to unravel for them.  My personal conviction and you understand as a former Marine, I always pull my punches and speak in a very wishy-washy way (laughter)...

Barrett
You and Gordon (Duff) both have that problem. 

Sabrosky
Our former men always thought, "there's a real softie up there," you know. Though I have to say, if one of my former Marines saw me walking around with one of my kittens on my shoulder, they'd probably say "we never really knew him." (laughter)  But here's my conclusion on this. If and I acknowledge it's a big if a classic grass-roots approach, something like the so-called Tea Party used, could persuade enough people at the local level in the United States, that Israel and its supporters here orchestrated 9/11, and thus the wars that ensued from 9/11, and are therefore responsible for the lives and treasure and loss of personal freedom Americans have experienced that doesn't even count what we've done to others then AIPAC and company are dead meat figuratively, politically, and quite possibly literally as well. And I think that applies to people who've supported them. And I tell you very frankly, at that point, the Israelis wouldn't just have to worry about a loss of US vetoes and military aid, they would very likely have to start dusting off their contingency plans for the Fifth and Sixth US fleets and associated US Air Force units. And they might want to start reflecting on pictures of Dresden and Tokyo and just how (Israel) would look afterwards.

Barrett
These kind of images, Alan, are what scare some Americans, and not just hard-core Zionists, away from looking into this scenario. Here in Madison, Wisconsin, I've been trying to convince people in Madison to look into 9/11, and I've been kind of nudging them to look at Israel's role, for years. And the liberal academic establishment, the government workers, the people who are now staging the Wisconsin Revolution...a lot of them will look into it, but the Israeli part has actually been a major hindrance. It certainly whipped up a lot of hatred of me, personally, as well as resistance to the truth movement. How do we get over that?

Sabrosky
Well, a lot of that has occurred because so much of the 9/11 truth movement is so diffuse, and the constant calls for "proof, proof, where's the proof, we need more proof, we need more evidence"...and, dear God, the evidence is there in abundance! As I mentioned in that piece I sent you, we've got everything but a public confession. And if you take the Dancing Israelis' interview on Israeli television when they got back, you've got an acknowledgment if not a confession. It's that no one here, no large number of people here, really accept the Israeli role in 9/11. It's one of so many possible interpretations out there. The 9/11 truth movement, or what's loosely called that, has an awful lot of people who spend an awful lot of time presenting fairly ridiculous hypotheses. I've read one, you know, that it was really the Martians, it truly was (laughter)

Barrett
That was probably Alfred Webre.

Sabrosky
all under the same umbrella, and with a remarkable lack of consensus, and talking about everything from the composition of a building to cruise missiles into the Pentagon and onward. The people can't deal with that. No public can. Not an American public which is remarkably ahistorical. But I don't think a general public anywhere can. The Zionists have a much better sense of how to do these things. They understand that slogans and street theater are not a substitute for strategy. 

Barrett
Let me stop you for just a second here, because I think there is a consensus in the truth movement, in the sense that looking at the neocons Cheney and Rumsfeld and Cheney's advisors, the PNAC people, Project for a New American Century everybody's pointing at those people. And then the question is: When you say "This looks like a Mossad operation, here's the evidence," which I have been doing for years, you get a lot of psychological resistance, for various reasons. But ultimately they end up saying "How could a small country like Israel do something like this? Wasn't it the big American empire? And aren't these neocons and PNAC people agents of the big American empire, and therefore isn't it mean and nasty and anti-Semitic to blame the Israelis?"

Sabrosky
All you have to do is and I'm saying "all" with quotation marks, and I want to get back to your images in just a second but all that's really necessary at that point is to look at domination of the media...I just finished, for example, looking at and posting on youtube about a ten-minute mp4 of real-time audio and video clips from 9/11, on the site. And (we heard) constantly, from multiple networks, multiple emergency response people, multiple survivors, about the secondary explosions on the ground level. You can hear them going off. That did not reach the American people after that first day. Look at who controls the media. Take that little chart that I gave you, that I included in that: 


This was the media in 2001-2002, this is what it is today, that's why you can't hear it.

(Editor's note: Every single person on the above list is Jewish and Zionist, with the exception of Rupert Murdoch, who may only be half-Jewish but is 101% Zionist. Former New York Times reporter Philip Weiss, an uncommonly honest and courageous man who identifies strongly as a Jew and has spent his life in the media, explains that Jews dominate American media, and do their jobs in such a way as to protect Israel. Why do Americans allow an ethnic group making up less than 2% of the population, whose members tend to be partial to, if not fanatical agents of, a foreign power, to so completely dominate their media?! To hell with Gays In the Military — maybe its time to "gin up" a civil rights struggle for Goys In the Media!  -KB)

Money. Campaign contributions. And it could be done by anyone. It's just that they do it. 

If the Arab countries, particularly the wealthier oil-producing countries, had decided to put less funds into modernization and luxuries, and put the same amount of money into building a complementary equivalent to AIPAC, and buying out the media on the open market, they could be doing it too. They just haven't. 

But money and media are the two key parts. And that degree of leverage is not at all unusual. I mean, I could imagine someone several hundred years ago saying, "How could one small city on the hills overlooking the Tiber rule this empire? There's got to be something else there."

And you know, for images, Kevin and I understand those images, and I use those particular images (of the US bombing Israel in retaliation for 9/11) very cautiously one thing we know, that we need to think about and I am very aware of some of the comments that you got after our interview a year ago if in fact (and let's put this hypothetically at this point) if in fact Israel, working with its neocon supporters and whoever else might have been involved within the United States, did in fact orchestrate 9/11 let's take that as a hypothesis then they, the Israelis, are directly or indirectly responsible for 67,000 Americans dead and wounded to date, and God knows how many people killed, wounded, dispossessed, made refugees in other countries...and they're trying to do it to a third country, Iran. They deserve, as a matter of justice, something more than a rhetorical slap on the wrist and an injunction not to do it again.

Barrett
Well, I can't disagree with that. This is Kevin Barrett talking with Alan Sabrosky. Back in a minute.

(commercial break)

* * *

Barrett (over fading bumper music: Poker Face, "I'd Rather Die than Be Your Slave")

That was Poker Face, the great rock and roll band that tells the truth about 9/11 and the Israeli-Zionist connection to 9/11, in no uncertain terms like my guest today, Dr. Alan Sabrosky, who is the author of a new article at Veterans Today: "Israel's Hidden Faces: A Long Day's Night for Us All" which outlines what he's been saying today. Alan, the last time you were on, the biggest reaction I got from people who weren't on board with it was: "Is this really proof?" I think they're scared off by...well, we're all taught that Jewish people have been falsely blamed for all sorts of things, and ruthlessly persecuted. And when they hear you saying these things, and saying "God knows what might happen to these AIPAC people once Americans figure this out," the reaction is: "We don't want to blame the Israeli Mossadnik Zionists unless we have really strong proof." Where is that proof?

Sabrosky
Well, I think in a very direct way, it's in WTC-7. As I remarked to someone, this is not a smoking gun, it's a smoking artillery brigade. When I was running through the analysis on this and by the way, there's my very detailed look at 9/11 in one of the three pieces that are coming out over the next three weeks I almost postponed this interview so we could wait until they were out. So this is a little anticipatory. So I sat down and I said, "What would it take for anyone..." Not starting off by saying "it was Mossad, let's prove it's Mossad," that's a silly point of view. If you wanted to start off to prove Mother Goose did something, you could probably fabricate enough stuff to point to the poor Goose lady.  But you look at this and you say, what would it take for anyone (to do 9/11). Well, obviously the first thing it takes is some sort of motivation or incentive. And the sad thing about it is, there are an awful lot of people out in the world now, and an awful lot countries and an awful lot of movements who hate the United States, and unfortunately they have very good reason to do so. But for most of them, the motivation would be negative. They would want revenge, they would want to hurt the United States, they would want to acquire retribution for some actual or assumed acts of the United States in the past. But they're essentially negative and punitive. The only country out there that would have a positive incentive to do it was Israel. And that was in keeping with the basic PNAC thesis, that there needs to be a catalytic event to mobilize the American people. 

I always thought the (PNAC) project was mis-named. The Project for a New American Century? It was really the Project for a New ISRAELI Century, and America's Role in It. 

Barrett
That's a good point. There's the earlier document the same (PNAC) people put out for Netanyahu, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Defending the Realm." And it's obvious whose realm they're talking about defending. 

Sabrosky
Exactly. Exactly. And for whom they wrote it.

Barrett
Netanyahu.

Sabrosky
Right. So Israel had a positive incentive to do it. 

What about organizations within the American government: the CIA, the Pentagon? And I think it's important, whenever people think about the CIA or the Pentagon, (to take into consideration that) there's an enormous difference between the actions of a small compartment of people within an organization, and an interest or determination or need on the part of the organization as a whole to do something. Let me give you an example on the military side of that. In the 1980s when I was at the Army War College. Almost all of us there, military and civilian, were veterans, mostly of Vietnam. And the primary focus of the US Army was on the Soviet Union, and particularly on NATO. And I remember sitting with some of the officers there in a seminar. And one of the colonels who had just gotten back a short time before from brigade command in Germany said, regarding the Soviets who had just gone into Afghanistan: "God I feel sorry for those poor bastards." He said, "Can you imagine? Afghanistan!" I don't think you could find a serving officer in the United States Armed Forces, outside perhaps of the controllers' office, but certainly no combat veterans, who would participate in a plot to give themselves the opportunity to invade Afghanistan. 

Barrett
The graveyard of empires.

Sabrosky
It's just not one of the top 500 countries on the list. Well, if you run out after Antarctica, maybe, if there was nothing else left. 

But for countries, governments and organizations that are used to execute their policy, Israel is the only one that had a positive incentive. They had something to gain from it, from the American response to it. Whereas for everyone else, they could hurt us, but they might themselves be the subject of retribution afterwards, and there's nothing positive coming out of it. 

So that's one. Second is expertise. There's lots of expertise out there. Looking at WTC-7 as a controlled demolition and no matter how you look at that building, from no matter what angle you look at it, it goes straight down in about seven seconds. It isn't knocked over. The face looking at World Trade Center 1 and 2 isn't shattered by falling debris, isn't pushed on its side that isn't how it goes down. It goes straight down. Controlled demolition? Many, many people have looked at that video and said, yeah, that's it, you can't go any other way. It goes from the bottom down. And that's it. 

There are a lot of people out there who can do it. There are a lot of people in the private sector who make money doing it, and a lot of people in assorted government agencies anywhere in the world who could openly do this. The expertise is there. But one thing I can tell you: Neither those 19 named Arabs, nor any of their supporters on the ground in America or elsewhere, had that expertise. If they did, the Green Zone in Baghdad would have been a pile of rubble. They would have taken the bloody thing down. They don't do that. Their expertise, when it comes to explosives,  is tying something around themselves and detonating it, or packing it into a truck or a car and ramming it into something, or planting a device alongside the road and either having someone run over it, or maybe detonating it with a wire. 

Barrett
So the Bin Laden Construction Company doesn't take down skyscrapers?

Sabrosky
No, it does not. It does take down one-room mud huts. It's very good at that. But there's a slight difference of scale between a one-room mud hut and a 1400 foot building. So they didn't have the expertise. Lots of others did. But they weren't one of them.

Third is access. 

I am not a demolitions expert. I do not bring down buildings. I threw grenades into them when I was in Vietnam. But I do not bring down large buildings. I'm not a trained engineer. And so I'm hostage to people whose work I've been able to read and study who are trained civil engineers. And demolitions experts. And it's very clear that what it requires to bring down a large building, like one of the World Trade Center buildings, is not going to be a quick fifteen-minute dash around inside the basement of the building patching things up the side and then running out. It's an extremely sophisticated process. Danny Jowenko (top European controlled demolition expert) said thirty to forty people doing various things. I couldn't prove that one way or the other, but it seems plausible. 

Kroll Associates was the security company at the World Trade Center. Electronic security, put security, 24/7. I cannot, on any side of this earth, imagine anyone associated with that company, or the World Trade Center management, casually letting a couple of hundred Arabs, run around the basement of three World Trade Center buildings, cutting open the walls, planting demolition charges, stringing cable and detonators, hooking them up electronically, and then leaving. It's not possible. I can't even imagine them letting an American agency do it, without the cooperation, collusion and endorsement of the Israelis.

Barrett
Why the Israelis, necessarily? What was their role at the World Trade Center complex, their role as far as having power over the World Trade Center?

Sabrosky
It's not so much a question of power over it, as who was in it. Silverstein, the owner, is a very staunch Zionist, very closely connected to them. The same with the ownership of Kroll Security. The people who owned, managed and ran security for the World Trade Center were very strong Zionists, like the PNAC people. 

I should tell you, by the way, that one of the things that caused me, in the years immediately after 9/11, to be reluctant to go in this direction, is that I found it very difficult to conceive of American citizens and I knew many of the senior PNAC people! I met Wolfowitz a number of times, I worked with Dov Zakheim and Doug Feith on a number of occasions, I knew and had the misfortune to be around Richard Perle a few times, and a lot of the other (PNAC) people. I knew them. And this was at a time when we were working against the Soviets, and these guys and I were on the same sheet of music against the Soviet Union. And I really found it difficult to accept that (these people orchestrated 9/11). But with what I've read and studied and learned since then...I 
think it's very possiblemore than possible. But I know this. The Israelis had something to gain from this, and al-Qaeda and the other Arab terrorist organizations or liberation organizations as you wish, didn't have the expertise or access to bring (the World Trade Center) down. You come down in the end to only one possible suspect. But to me, the kicker on this is the response, or the non-response, of the media to what happened. I am astonished by the number of records and documents on 9/11 that just disappeared: The BBC's records ("lost them, don't have the back-ups!"); the FAA controllers' files ("well hush my mouth! just can't find 'em!")...and then the silence, the virtual silence of the mainstream media as to what was being broadcast live, on the ground, on 9/11, by people who were reporting the secondary explosions and who were talking to other people  on live camera and you hear the explosion at ground level. Planes impacting at 800 feet above the ground are not going to create secondary explosions at ground level. It isn't possible. Maybe a B-52 that opened its bomb bays and dropped its load just before (hitting the Towers) would create something down there. But certainly not a civilian airliner. It's not possible. And the thing that struck me about that is that I got more and more into the role, or the non-role, of the media.

Very quickly after 9/11, the mainstream media launched essentially a three-pronged attack. First: To effectively endorse the official government position. Second: To deflect attention from anything except the Arabs: That the (alleged hijacker) pilots couldn't have flown the planes, things like this; a guy's passport ending up intact after an 800-plus-foot fall. I don't think a brick could fall that far in New York winds and not move a couple of blocks over. Third, to disparage and mock those who question it.

Barrett
No question about that. I think the whole truth movement would agree with you on thisnot necessarily that it's largely Zionist sentiments in the media that are responsible for (the media coverup). But that's certainly a major factor. We'll be back in a moment. 

(Commercial break)

Barrett
Welcome back...This is Kevin Barrett with Alan Sabrosky. It's great to have Alan back on the show. Alan, I agree that most of what you're saying is pretty well backed up by the evidence. I've looked at all different kinds of evidence around 9/11. There's some evidence that Cheney and Rumsfeld were working on an alternate, non-Constitutional secret line of succession from the Ford Administration on up through 9/11. Peter Dale Scott discusses this in The Road to 9/11. I think that's an important angle. 9/11 may have been welcomed by a certain group of right-wing generals, along with Rumsfeld, Cheney, etcetera, who were not primarily Zionist. But I think you're right that the Mossad is the primary suspect as the main on-the-ground actor. And the question is, how can we get this to the heartland? You're saying we need to focus on this and convey it to people in the heartland. Well, here I am sitting in the heartland. Tell me how to do it.

Sabrosky
Okay. I'm going to transition from the discussion we just had on the media, as a lead-in to where I think we should go. It's something that I commented on in that last piece: That the only reason the mainstream media, given its ownership, didn't rip the government case apart, is because they either knew, suspected, or feared that the evidentiary trail would lead to Israel and its supporters. Otherwise they would have shredded it, without any question. Now, the fact is that the center of Zionist power, not just on 9/11 but generically, is in Washington, DC and New York. Attempts to try to fight them in their own strongholds will be futile or counterproductive. I don't think there's a single member of Congress, Democrat, Republican or Independent, who would stand up on behalf of (9/11 truth) and criticize Israel. Certainly the control of the mainstream media is that strong. So we can't look at Washington and New York, we can't look at traditional centers of power. 

I put together that piece I originally sent you as a slide show, and I think you got the slide show attachment. And I put that slide-show together with a very specific audience and purpose in mind. And it's going to be referenced in the third of the three pieces that are coming out in the next few weeks. And the intention was to distribute it and the distribution, by the way, is already starting to local Veterans Chapters: VFW, American Legion, Navy League, and others. Not the national office. I expect it's been compromised, just like other national offices have been. It's in Washington, and I would not be at all surprised if AIPAC is a regular visitor there. 

Not even necessarily state offices. But the local chapters. Take it to the local chapters. Military people receive briefings by slide-shows all the time, when they're in the service. They're used to the medium. They've often given them. It's just a standard briefing. This is a briefing taking as background what the Israelis have done to the United States, to what they have done to the Palestinians with the collusion of the American government, why they have been able to do it, what it has cost us, and then where to go. 

Get it to the local veterans chapters. Have an individual take it to whoever is in charge of a local veterans chapter, and on a one-to-one basis, show it to them. 

A lot of them won't want to see it. The ones who see it are probably going to be far more receptive to it than many other audiences out there. The ones I have shown it to in this area (are receptive) and are not happy with the conclusions that come out of it. I don't mean "not happy" in the sense that they dismiss them. It's more like, "Oh...my...God...It's not like anything we see on television, read in the major newspapers, or pick up on in Time, Newsweek, or US News and World Report." 

(The major media) just don't get it. So it would start with local chapters of veterans organizations. And from there, go to the local town meetings of members of Congress, both houses, both parties. They do show up among their local constituencies, in their Districts, in their states. And the local media, at least down here and in the other states I've lived in, have their own agenda. And their agenda is not the agenda of the Washington Post or the New York Times. They have their own agenda, they may have their own alternative candidates, they may have an interest in something like this. 

So pin them. Pin them on these issues in their local constituencies. Because the local media will largely carry it. And the people who are at those meetings will hear it. Do it at that level. Start with the veterans organizations, carry it into town hall meetings of the local congressional representatives, and take it from there. 

And that's the place to start. I don't mean "take it from there" in a dismissive sense. I mean where it goes from there depends on the reaction at the first two levels. 

Barrett
That sounds like a plan, Alan. It actually makes a lot of sense. I'll try and get on that here. I imagine it might be easier for people who are veterans themselves

Sabrosky
Yep.

Barrett
and hang out with these groups, to do this. Me, for example, if I come in there (to the local VFW) and say hi, I'm a university teacher and a Muslim...(laughter)...so naturally I'm going to be blaming Israel for everything. But I'll give it a shot. 

Sabrosky
What I've done already, I've just been exchanging emails on this with nine veterans, all Vietnam era types. And that's because we're sort of in that generational thing. And they're all willing to talk

Barrett
Well, Alan, we're at the end here. Where can people go to find this slide show?

Sabrosky
I have made a youtube video of it. It's filed under IsraelsHiddenFaces.avi .

Barrett
Thank you, Alan Sabrosky. It's been wonderful as always. Hang in there.

Sabrosky
Thank you very much, Kevin.