If you like this blog

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

Sunday, October 30, 2011

John Le Carré and 9/11 Truth: Skewering the Criminal State

“The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded.” John le Carré, "The United States of America Has Gone Mad" 1/15/2003

Has spy novelist John le Carré, the nom de plume of ex-MI6 agent David Cornwall, ever suspected there's a method in the post-9/11 madness? Does he know that 9/11 achieved everything the neoconservatives were calling for when they demanded a "New Pearl Harbor" in Rebuilding America's Defenses - published exactly one year before 9/11? Has he heard of World Trade Center Building 7? Has he noticed that 9/11 itself, and the weaponized anthrax follow-up, was indeed beyond anything Bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams - that indeed Bin Laden and his network did not have the means to pull off anything remotely like 9/11, as top Arab political analyst Mohammed Heikal noted shortly after the event? Has he looked at evidence of a massive cover-up, and the tie-ins to Mossad-linked organized crime, including the Russian-Israeli mob?

I cannot find any evidence that Le Carré has publicly questioned the official story of 9/11. But his latest novel, Our Kind of Traitor, examines the seismic power shift - the takeover of the state by an organized crime network dominating the financial sector - of which the 9/11 inside job was a symptom.

The novel opens with the protagonist, a university literature teacher, livid about the 9/11 wars and post-9/11 assaults on freedom, snarling "We need a revolution." The rest of the novel bears that statement out.

Le Carré dishes up a contemporary version of the classic Cold War plot in which British and/or American intelligence agents snatch a Russian defector in hopes of whisking him to safety and a new life, while garnering a treasure trove of crucial information that will save the free world from perdition. In the new, post-9/11 version, the Russian defector is actually a Russian mob defector: the world's biggest money launderer, ready to rat out the seven mobster oligarchs to save his life. And instead of communists like Kim Philby infiltrating the free world's intelligence services and complicating the defector-snatch operation, Le Carré paints the corrupt financier kingpins of the City of London and the rest of the global big banking sector as today's bad guys and infil-traitors. (In this, he apparently agrees with Occupy protestors as well as 9/11 truthers.)

Mike Ruppert, who along with Alex Jones dominated the early 9/11 truth movement, noted that 9/11 was orchestrated by corrupt, money-laundering elements at the top of the US-UK-Israeli financial sector. Webster Tarpley places those elements squarely at the center of the City of London. Wayne Madsen highlights the role of the Russian-Israeli mob, which according to FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds was employed to finance the 9/11 operation by Bush Administration neocons Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, by way of mob fronts called the American Turkish Council and the American Azerbaijan Council. Christopher Bollyn has linked 9/11 to many specific Zionist mob players in the US, mainly New York and Chicago. And Jeff Gates shows us the big picture: A trans-generational mafia, the biggest and baddest organized crime ring on the planet, that created the state of Israel as its main base of operations, and arranged 9/11 as a kind of global coup d'état.

While acknowledging that a coup has occurred, and the mob-linked financiers have taken over, Le Carré goes out of his way to eschew any Jewish or Zionist connections to the Russian mobsters he depicts. In this, one might say he protests too much, especially when he has his protagonist wonder whether the Russian money launderer he meets might be Jewish, only to be set straight by the crucifix the mobster's wife wears around her neck. In the real world, where six of the seven biggest Russian criminal oligarchs are Jews with connections to Israel and Zionism, it would more likely be a Star of David.

Le Carré does offer one apparent reference to the famous "put options" of 9/11, in which unidentified investors made billions by betting against United and American Airlines as well as Morgan Stanley and other big World Trade Center tenants. (The 9/11 Commission told us not to worry, because it wasn't al-Qaeda that bought the put options; and besides, the question of who financed 9/11, i.e. who is really responsible for the worst crime in history, is "of little practical significance.") Le Carré has his Russian mobster confess to having been given inside information before the Mumbai "Muslim terrorist attack," which led him to divest himself of his Mumbai holdings, buy them back after the price-crash following the attack, and make a ten million dollar profit. Buzzy Krongard, eat your heart out!

Despite his studious avoidance of the connection between Zionism and organized crime's takeover of the West, and his failure to directly question 9/11, Le Carré's depiction of moral people confronting a terminally corrupt power structure rings true in other respects. A fine, righteous anger with prophetic echoes shines through his understated prose. By ending his book with an actual Observer news article entitled "Drug Money Saved Banks in Global Crisis, Says UN Advisor," Le Carré underscores the obvious: Our Kind of Traitor is not just a first-rate spy novel, but also an audacious bit of social criticism. We do need a revolution, and it looks like John Le Carré and his protagonists will be joining it.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

It Isn't the Government Any More

Jacob Hornberger is understatedly upset about the recent murder of the 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the son of Anwar al-Awlaki.

Hornberger writes:

There are several things that are especially fascinating about the U.S. government’s assassination of this American teenager, who apparently traveled to Yemen looking for his father before his father was assassinated:

First, the U.S. government has assassinated a minor.

Second, no one except the assassins knows why they assassinated the boy.

Third, the people who planned and carried out the assassination — from President Obama, to the Pentagon, to the CIA — aren’t talking.

Fourth, nobody can force them to explain why they killed the boy. 


Fascinating indeed.

After driving home the fact that nobody knows why this innocent 16-year-old American was murdered, Hornberger concludes:

But one thing is for sure: The assassination of 16-year-old American Abdulrahman al-Awlaki confirms that we now live in a country whose government has the unfettered authority to assassinate anyone it wants, adult or minor, foreigner or American, and remain mute about it

Wrong.

If it does that, it isn't the government anymore. It's an organized crime ring.

The Bill of Rights is very clear about what the government can and cannot do. If people posing as officials of the US government murder US citizens without due process of law, they are criminal usurpers.

Normally I wouldn't put "fighting organized crime" at the top of everyone's priorities list. But in this case, I do think that every American needs to make it a top priority to take this mob out, by whatever means necessary, and restore Constitutional rule by an actual government.

Normally organized crime deals in drugs, prostitution, and money laundering, with a smattering of murder and extortion. We can live with a certain amount of these things, unpleasant as they often are.

But when an organized crime ring masquerades as a government, uses the Constitution for toilet paper, and flushes, no rational citizen can have any higher priority than finding a way to take them out, and to make any sacrifice necessary in pursuit of that objective.

That goes double for those who have worn uniforms, and those who have sworn oaths to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I signed that oath to get a college teaching job in California. I thought it over before I signed. And when I signed it, I meant it.

How about our men and women in uniform and in the intelligence services? Do they cross their fingers behind their back when they swear that oath to the Constitution? If not, when given an order to murder a US citizen, in flagrant violation of the Constitution, why don't they immediately kill, or at least arrest, the traitor who gave the order? Is there any other honorable course of action available? If so, what could it possibly be?

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Where Qaddafi Failed, Islam Will Succeed

Let’s face it: Qaddafi was a failure.

He was looking for unity in all the wrong places: Arab unity, African unity, “third-world” unity.

In his doomed quest for unity, Qaddafi was a failed idealist. “Arab”-ness is just another nationalism, another form of empty identity politics. “African-ness” and “Third Worldness” are no better. Africa has two thousand different languages and cultures. The Third World has even more.

Qaddafi also failed to survive and carve out a niche for himself as a head of state to be reckoned with. He failed to win the West as an ally, despite all his concessions and backroom deals.

In his doomed quest for power-through-accommodation, Qaddafi was a failed pragmatist.

Finally, in the most noble effort of his life, Qaddafi took up the cause of the Islamic gold dinar and silver dirham. In this he was a failed saviour.

The irony is that the real Grand Unity Project, fueled by the Islamic gold dinar and silver dirham, was right there in front of Qaddafi’s nose all along, only he couldn’t see it. It’s called Islamic unity.

The vast majority of the world’s Muslims consider themselves part of the Umma – the Islamic nation. According to a Global Public Opinion poll, two-thirds of the world’s Muslims want to “unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate.”  That means that the minute there is real democracy in the Muslim-majority countries, those countries will cease to exist, and merge into a reborn Islamic caliphate.

But wait! Those people don’t want to be ruled by sharia law, do they?! Oh yes they do. According to the same poll, three-quarters of the world’s Muslims want to “require Islamic countries to impose a strict application of sharia.” If you think about it, this is no more outrageous than Americans wanting to use the American legal system, or the French wanting to use the Napoleonic code. Nobody wants to be ruled by powerful foreigners, and nobody wants to be forced to use a foreign legal system in ones own country. And for most Muslims, their country is Islam – not the pathetic little bantustans the West carved out of the Islamic world less than a century ago, nor the even smaller and more pathetic bantustans the Israelis and their American lapdogs are trying to carve out today.

Qaddafi, ironically enough, silenced, persecuted, tortured, and murdered Islamic activists who held high the green banner of Islam, with its creed “no god but God, and Muhammad is God’s prophet,” as the basis of anti-imperialist unity and a reborn Islamic nation. He was the last great Arab secular nationalist, in the mold of his hero Nasser. With his passing, Arab secular nationalism is officially dead.

The Islamic gold dinar and silver dirham, however, are very much alive; and they are the weapons that will create the Islamic unity that the Muslim majority wants. All Muslims have to do is say, very firmly: Our religion requires us to use only commodity currency. We must pay our zakat in gold and silver. Usury is a crime equal to rape and murder, and using money created through usury is as bad as participating in mass rape and murder. We cannot use Rothschild money. Henceforth, we will only accept commodity money in return for our oil and gas exports. And henceforth, usury money, like usury itself, will be banned from all Muslim-majority lands. Like the EU, we will create a common currency, the gold dinar and silver dirham; and then we will move beyond the EU and create a real political union with a shared defense force.

These are the demands that Occupy movements in Islamic nations must adopt – and which the Occupy movements in the West should support. After all, the root of all political evil is the Rothschild money monopoly. Western dissidents alone don’t have the power to topple it. Only the Muslim bloc – 1.5 billion people potentially willing to die to liberate themselves and the planet from the rule of the usurers – has that power. That’s why Muslims were framed for 9/11: To launch a pre-emptive war on Islam. The banksters were trying to pre-empt Islam’s coming victory over usury.

Whether it happens this year or next, or in a decade or two, Islamic unity is coming, because the people want it. The rebels’ victory over Qaddafi will be seen in retrospect not as a win for Western imperialism – as so many alternative journalists think – but as the end of misguided nationalism and another big step toward the coming reunification of the Islamic world.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Et tu, Neil Conan? NPR censors 9/11 truth - here's how to defeat them



This afternoon Neil Conan told a man he was going to hang up on him, and he did so. Mr. Conan said that it had been scientifically proved that the towers had fallen from the airplanes that hit them...he was not going to give the man  a chance to continue his statement to the effect that we need more investigation.  I do not have a twitter or facebook connection, but it would be great if someone who does would address Mr. Conan's hanging up on what I consider at the very least free speech.  Talk of the Nation should be what it says it is.

Leona Heitsch
Bourbon, Mo.

* * *

Dear Leona,

Complain!

http://www.npr.org/contact/totn.html
Call "Talk of the Nation" at (800) 989-8255

Calling in to NPR and other general-audience radio shows may be the best way to keep 9/11 truth in the national conversation.

So please call in to any and all NPR shows - and tailor your comments (and what you say to the screeners) to the shows' (and screeners') needs.

The shows, and screeners, want certain kinds of calls more than others.  Most NPR shows have a flat-out "no 9/11 truth" policy, which is not just indefensible, but treasonous and murderous - the moral and legal equivalent of the work of Dr. Goebbels, only worse* - and should be subverted in every way possible short of lethal violence. So you can and must refrain from mentioning 9/11 truth to the screeners! Getting on those shows, by whatever means necessary, is your patriotic duty!

Here's why getting on the air is such a challenge:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5363084

"The first thing to remember is that Talk of the Nation is live radio. Well, almost live. There is a seven-second delay in broadcasting the program. That gap is there in the event that the listener gets on but then wants to talk about something else — or worse — so the studio director must be able to terminate the call. Occasionally, some callers have been known to 'bait-and-switch.' They tell the screener that, yes, they do want to discuss the day’s topic. But once they are on the air, they start to opine on a pet peeve. That’s when the audio trap door springs open and the caller vanishes. But aside from that, Talk of the Nation is as live as radio can be."

Given this format, the way to get 9/11 truth into the conversation is simple:

1) Find a connection between "today's topic" and 9/11 truth.

2) Prepare a summary of your point that does not mention 9/11 truth, and give that to the screener.

3) When you get on the air, introduce your point without mentioning 9/11 truth, continue the exposition well past the seven-second cutoff point, and finally deliver 9/11 truth as the punchline to your comment.

This approach is perfectly legitimate and considerate of NPR's and the host's need to stay on topic. People call up and make connections between "today's topic" and other issues all the time! It is unjust for NPR to single out 9/11 truth, the most important issue of the century, for censorship, while allowing people to discuss connections between "today's topic" and other less-important issues.

NPR tells us:

We are looking for callers that can advance the story by giving us unique stories and opinions that broaden our coverage. We let listeners know at the top of the show exactly what we are looking for and who. It will be different for each show. Callers who respond to what we ask are the most likely to get on. Most often,  we ask for personal stories that can shed light on the topic we are covering… Sometimes we ask for questions that will expand the story. Often listeners have questions that we have not thought of and their questions can help make a topic more relevant to our listeners' concerns. Sometimes it's more important to get opinions. We make a great effort to balance the range of opinions we air on any topic and not repeat the same opinion.

This is all perfectly legitimate. Try to find a way to address "today's topic" that responds to the show's needs, and works in 9/11 truth as a punchline.

For example, I recently heard an NPR interview with "Professor X," the disillusioned adjunct professor whose book In the Basement of the Ivory Tower argues that many totally unprepared students are wasting their time and money by going to college. I tried to call in, only to discover it was a re-run. Had I connected, here's what I would have said.

Screener: "Hello, this is Talk of the Nation. What would you like to talk about?"

Me: "During the past ten years, I have taught at a top-tier public university, a Catholic college, and a bottom-rung private college, and I wanted to share those experiences. Unlike Professor X, I found that the top-tier university kids were generally well-prepared. But at the private college - whoa! Completely unbelievable! The place was a scam."

Screener: "Okay, please stand by, you're the third caller in line."

A few minutes later:

Host: "Welcome to Talk of the Nation."

Me: "Hi Neil, great to be with you. I wanted to tell Professor X that my teaching experiences haven't been exactly like his. I taught at the University of Wisconsin - Madison from 1995 until 2006, and found that for the most part the students there were reasonably well-prepared, with flashes of occasional excellence. But then in 2006 I left the University of Wisconsin and found a job at one of those admit-anybody-with-a-pulse private colleges. About 95% of the students there were totally unprepared for college-level work. It was a lot like you describe."

Guest: "Why did you leave the University of Wisconsin?" (the obvious question)

Me: "Well, it's kind of a long story. Want to hear the short version?"

Guest: "Sure."

Host: "Please go ahead."

Me: "Well, it was a big academic freedom case. To make a long story short, I was witch-hunted out of the University by Republican state legislators because I had publicly discussed the results of my research on 9/11, which indicated that 9/11 was unquestionably a false-flag operation. If your listeners are curious about this, they should google "W-T-C 7 smoking gun."  That's "W-T-C 7 smoking gun..."

At this point they'll either steer the topic back to other aspects of my teaching career, or cut me off.

Note that I've gotten on the air, given them what they want ("personal stories that can shed light on the topic") and engaged them in conversation. It will be hard for them to make that snap decision to cut me off.

Obviously it isn't always this easy for everyone to work 9/11 truth into an NPR conversation. But with some creative imagination - and the willingness to meet the shows' expectations halfway - it can be done.


- - -

* The genocidal propaganda of the "radical Muslims did 9/11" variety is worse than that of Goebbels, because the former incorporates the illusion of freedom, anti-racism, "democracy," etc., while the Nazi propagandists were at least honest about the hatred, bigotry and unfreedom they were purveying. A prison that you know is a prison is a much more free place than a prison effectively disguised as something else.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

9/11 Conspiracy Theories Finally Laid to Rest

New Witnesses Prove Government Was Right After All

9/11 conspiracy theories have been laid to rest many times.

But somehow they seem to keep bouncing back.

A few years ago, the military released a few frames from one of its eighty security videos showing the attack on the Pentagon. As Sean Hannity said, "This will silence the conspiracy theorists." And by all rights it should have. After all, if you enter a state of deep relaxation and watch those frames with your eyes closed and visualize a 757 hitting the Pentagon, you can almost see it - even if O'Reilly himself couldn't.

Not long after that, a British scientist released a very, very scientific paper explaining how the Twin Towers might have defied the laws of physics by exploding into powder from the top down at near free-fall speed without the use of explosives. The author claims to have discovered that chaos theory invalidates the laws of physics - and the laws of meaning as well. You can tell that this paper is incredibly scientific because it is impossible to understand. If you relished Finnegan's Wake, you might be able to get through a couple of sentences of this paper. Conspiracy theorists, however, dismissed it as pretentious nonsense.

Another British scientist has opined that it was magnetic phenomena, not heat or explosives, that caused the Trade Towers to collapse. This theory, however, was not magnetic enough to cause conspiracy theories to collapse.

Magnetism and chaos theory were not the only hitherto-unknown scientific phenomena invoked to explain away the apparent demolitions of 9/11. In 2008, the National Institute of Sciences and Technology claimed to have discovered yet another "new phenomenon," which it called "thermal expansion."  Conspiracy theorists, once again, were unimpressed.

Last month a Norwegian scientist named Christen Simensen claimed that the massive explosions witnessed by hundreds of victims and first responders - explosions the conspiracy theorists say were part of a controlled demolition - were actually caused by molten aluminum from the planes interacting with water from the buildings' sprinkler systems. Apparently, molten aluminum has some interesting properties. It can actually flow backwards in time, which explains why the first explosions in the North Tower happened a little over ten seconds before the plane hit, according to seismic evidence and eyewitness testimony. And molten aluminum can, under certain extraordinary circumstances, teleport itself from building to building, which is how the molten aluminum in the Towers caused the explosions that brought WTC-7 straight down at free-fall speed. Molten aluminum, it seems, may even have been responsible for the BBC's premature report of the demise of WTC-7, the count-down to demolition that was heard over police radio, official announcements that WTC-7 was about to be demolished, and other strange phenomena witnessed that day. Even Larry Silverstein is now blaming molten aluminum for his nationally-televised confession to the demolition of WTC-7.

Somehow, despite all this debunking, the conspiracy theorists haven't gone away.

But now, new eyewitness evidence has surfaced proving, once and for all, that the government's story is true.

Bill Widdleschnapp, a 48-year-old computer programmer from Arborville, Massachusetts, has conclusive proof that Muslim hijackers with boxcutters really did take over four planes and slam three of them into their targets. After all, he was on those planes.

"I was on Flight 93, heading to San Francisco to visit relatives," Widdleschnapp explains. "At the same time, I had a ton of business to attend to in Los Angeles, so I caught Flights 11, 175, and 77 just to make sure I'd get there on time."

Widdleschnapp asserts that the 9/11 Commission's account of what happened on each of those planes is correct. "The official account is amazingly accurate," he asserts. "It's almost like author Philip Zelikow was on those planes too, sitting right beside me." Widdleschnapp added that the film Flight 93 was "downright uncanny. I mean, there I am, sitting in 26-B! It's incredible! I think Hollywood must have had somebody with a camera on the actual plane, because that movie isn't fiction, it's a documentary. As far as I can tell, every bit of footage was filmed right there on the actual Flight 93."

How did Widdleschnapp manage to survive the fiery crashes? "Hey, if ten hijackers can survive, why not a passenger?"

Widdleschnapp's testimony is backed by another new witness: Diddley Schnagle, a bartender from Bend, Oregon. "What do you mean 9/11 wasn't real?" Schnagle insists. "I saw it with my own eyes! I saw it on television! I saw the Flight 93 movie! I was there!"


Conspiracy theorists, awed by the new eyewitness testimony, seem to have finally given up and gone away. One especially notorious conspiracy theorist, Dr. Kevin Barrett, has announced that due to the overpowering effect of Widdleschnapp and Schnagle's testimony, he has retired from alternative journalism is now writing for the mainstream media.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Pushing the Anthrax Envelope: Barry Kissin responds to NY Times admission that CIA-military "may have" made Ameri-thrax


The US government officially admits that the 9/11-follow-up anthrax mailings were a false-flag attack, originating from the US military-intelligence community, designed to demonize Muslims.

How long before they admit that 9/11, the other phase of the same event, was equally false-flag?

Barry Kissin, expert on the anthrax aspect of the 9/11-anthrax event, will be my guest on Truth Jihad Radio next Monday, October 17th, along with former BBC lead Mideast correspondent Alan Hart.

Barry writes:

A very real breakthrough occurred Monday on the front page of the NY Times. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/science/10anthrax.html

The comment on this article I posted at nytimes.com was as follows:


Bingo! "If Dr. Ivins did not make the powder, one conceivable source might be classified government research on anthrax, carried out for years by the military and the Central Intelligence Agency."


This theme is developed further in the paper by the three scientists that is the focus of this article: "[T]he most likely sites of production of the letter anthrax are laboratories that work with dry spores:  Battelle, Dugway, and DRES.  Battelle, for example, is well-known for its aerosol study capabilities ... There is no evidence that relevant samples were ever collected at Dugway, Battelle or other potentially suspect sites."


The cover-up of military-industrial-intelligence involvement is not only the work of the Bush Administration. The national security complex now dictates to the Obama administration. Witness that on March 15, 2011, the Obama administration announced it would oppose any reopening of Amerithrax because a reopening would "unfairly cast doubt on [the FBI's] conclusions"!


For an outline of the contours of the cover-up, see memo at
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/media/pdfs/FortAnthrax.pdf

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Psychopaths develop technology to detect angry normals

A cabal of psychopaths that rules the former USA has developed a new tool to detect and neutralize non-psychopaths who threaten their power. That, at least, is the implication of a recently-uncovered Department of Homeland Security document revealing the existence of Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) - a "pre-crime" detection unit not unlike the one dystopian novelist Philip K. Dick dreamed up for "Minority Report," which inspired the Tom Cruise film. And by way of homage to another great dystopian writer, George Orwell, FAST will red-flag individuals harboring what the ruling psychopaths call "malintent."

As DailyTech.com reports:

This new "pre-crime" detection facility was discovered via a June 2010 DHS document that was acquired by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). The document states that information is currently collected and retained on "members of the public" as part of the pre-crime system,  which is called Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST).

FAST is made up of algorithms that use factors including gender,  age,  ethnicity,  heart rate,  body movements,  occupation,  voice pitch changes,  body heat fluctuations and breathing patterns to identify clues as to whether the individual(s) will commit a crime in the future.

The idea behind FAST is to prevent crimes from happening before individuals even have a chance to commit them based on the factors listed above. It is able to do this through the use of sensors that collect audio recordings,  video images and psychophysiological measurements.

"The department's Science and Technology Directorate has conducted preliminary research in operational settings to determine the feasibility of using non-invasive physiological and behavioral sensor technology and observational techniques to detect signs of stress, which are often associated with intent to do harm," said Peter Boogaard,  the deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security. 

The problem is that this kind of emotion-detection technology does not work against psychopaths - especially those psychopaths or near-psychopaths who have been trained to beat it by professional criminal organizations and intelligence agencies. Psychopaths compose that 1%-2% of the population that lacks normal emotional inhibitory barriers to grossly immoral and/or antisocial conduct. As Harrison Koehli said on my radio show, "If you were locked in a room in a burning building with an axe at hand, you would chop through the door to get away. A psychopath would chop through a human being just as easily as you would chop through that door."

John Perkins describes how he was selected by IMF banksters as an economic hitman: They discovered that he was a bright guy who had been peripherally involved in a low-level crime and had successfully lied to cover up the more serious involvement of a friend. The bankers then administered Perkins a battery of tests. We may assume that the banksters were administering their own version of the standard exam for psychopathy, tweaked to select the kind of people they were looking for: those who score in the top 20% or so on the psychopathy test, who have high IQs and decent social skills, and who are capable of teaming up with other relatively amoral people against what we might call the moral majority, if that word hadn't already been appropriated by another, religious-manipulative variety of psychopath.

Perkins, we may assume, is not a psychopath - not one of the top 1%.  That's why they made him an economic hit man, rather than one of the professional killers or "asteroids" sent to murder heads of state who refused to take Perkins' bribes. And that's why he had enough of a conscience that the sight of the smoking rubble at Ground Zero, and the knowledge that his former colleagues had done it, made him a whistleblower. (Listen to John Perkins on my radio show.)

My point is that the banksters behind the series of coups d'état beginning with the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the aborted Smedley Butler coup in the 1930s, the Kennedy assassinations of the 1960s, the October Surprise of 1980, and the mother of all coups on 9/11/2001, have assembled a team of psychopaths and near psychopaths to take over and rule the planet. (The banksters themselves are probably DIPs, or Dominant Inbred Psychopaths, as Karen Tostado put it on last Wednesday's radio show.)

Their problem: The psychopaths are being found out, and the normals are getting angry.

How to stop angry normals from coalescing into an anti-psychopath coalition capable of overthrowing the pathocracy? To stop the angry normals, the pathocrats need a detection system. They need to be able to figure out which normals are angry at the pathocracy, and intent on acting against it - in other words, which normals have "malinent" toward the DIPs.

And that's where emotion-reading technologies like FAST come in. Psychopaths, unlike normal people, cannot "read" emotions naturally and empathically. They spend their lives trying to cerebrally figure out how to predict and control the behavior of normal humans, by coldly "reading" emotional signs and responding with the appropriate manipulations. Shock-and-awe operations like 9/11 are designed by such high-IQ psychopaths as Paul Wolfowitz and Philip Zelikow to induce learned helplessless in the terrorized majority of normals, allowing the DIPs to run roughshod over them.

The pathocrats are designing a dystopia that would boggle the combined minds of Philip K. Dick and George Orwell. They would love to set up a FAST-style pre-crime detection system to red-flag people harboring inappropriate emotions, such as anger at the pathocracy, which - when combined with a certain kind of steadfastness - marks that person a potential threat to their misrule.

I don't know about you, but I am one of the people that FAST would red-flag: I am furious at the pathocracy, and committed to bringing it down by any means necessary.

We had better act swiftly, before FAST is deployed and all of us anti-pathocrats are neutralized.

* * *

For background on this topic, check out my article "Twilight of the Psychopaths."

Monday, October 3, 2011

Am I Next?

American citizen. Born in the USA.  Religion: Muslim. Harsh critic of US regime's genocidal war on Islam. Teller of inconvenient truths. A threat to the powers-that-be. Trying to rally Muslims to jihad in defense of themselves, their faith, and their resources, against the genocidal Zionist-American aggressor. 

Can't arrest him - no evidence he's committed any crime. So how to silence him?

KILL HIM.

They were talking about the hero and martyr Anwar al-Awlaki. But they might as well have been talking about me.
 I believe every single one of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims should make it his or her top priority to defend themselves and their faith - by any means necessary including military force - against the genocidal war on Islam launched by the 9/11 false-flag PR stunt. So shoot me with a predator drone!


In the wake of the murder of al-Awlaki, and the even more gruesome murder of the Bill of Rights, it's clear that all bets are off. There is no longer a shred of legitimacy to the so-called "government of the United States." It's a bunch of gangsters, pure and simple.

How do you deal with gangsters, murderers, and bullies, in an environment where the rule of law is gone? You shoot them in the back the second you have the chance. It's the only way to protect yourself.

Anything else I could say on this topic would probably be inadvisable. So I'll turn it over to my fellow Veterans Today columnist, Allen Roland, who will be my guest on Truth Jihad Radio this Wednesday, October 5th, 2-3 pm Central.

-KB, 10/3/11


From Allen Roland's new column "And We Thought We Were Free"

Let’s talk about our rapidly disappearing Civil Liberties and the fact that protecting individual rights and liberties has been at the very bottom of the totem pole for the Obama administration as it was with the Cheney/Bush administration. President Obama has blatantly not only failed to close Guantanamo Bay, as he promised, but has continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals and still exercises his Bush inherited right to kill US citizens that he views as terrorists ~ as witness the recent drone assassination of American born US citizen Al Awlaki on September 30th in Yemen. 

Please note that no effort was made to indict Al Awlaki for any crimes despite ( a report last October that the Obama administration was “considering” indicting him).  Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even had any operational role in Al Qaeda, despite the fact that no evidence (as opposed tounverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt.

As such, this assassination of a US citizen is an act of intimidation (meant to send a message to the masses) and the fall out is always increased warnings and then a decrease in civil liberties and freedom. (Reuters) - The State Department issued a worldwide travel alert on Saturday warning of the possibility of anti-American attacks in response to the killing of two top al Qaeda members,including Al Awlaki.

Remember, this extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen was carried out by our Nobel Peace Prize winner ~ President Barack Obama. In that regard, Jonathan Turley, LA Times, feels that President Obama may be the most disastrous president in our history in terms of civil liberties; 

“Protecting individual rights and liberties - apart from the right to be tax-free - seems barely relevant to candidates or voters. One man is primarily responsible for the disappearance of civil liberties from the national debate, and he is Barack Obama. While many are reluctant to admit it, Obama has proved a disaster not just for specific civil liberties but the civil liberties cause in the United States… Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the "just following orders" defence for other officials, the very defence rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.”

Read the full article ~ http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/275-42/7663-focus-obama-a-disaster-for-civil-liberties
 

But Turley makes the valid point that the seeming liberal indifference to Obama’s betrayal of civil rights and liberties could well be a classic case of the Stockholm Syndrome ~ in which the hostage bonds with his captor despite the obvious threat to his existence much as Germany once did to Hitler’s persona and fascism in the midst of an economic depression;

“Even though many Democrats admit in private that they are shocked by Obama's position on civil liberties, they are incapable of opposing him. Some insist that they are simply motivated by realism: A Republican would be worse. However, realism alone cannot explain the utter absence of a push for an alternative Democratic candidate or organized opposition to Obama's policies on civil liberties in Congress during his term. It looks more like a cult of personality. Obama's policies have become secondary to his persona.”

Mayer’s book describes the slow but sure seduction of the German people as their civil liberties, freedoms and moral values were gradually stripped away by Hitler’s fascist government while waving the flag of national security and patriotism....


Read Allen Roland's whole article ~http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/03/and-we-thought-we-were-free/

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Fatty Bin Laden "confession video" : Fake or bogus?

I think the "Fatty Bin Laden smoking gun confession video" is fake.

Maher Osserian thinks it is merely bogus.

Actually, Maher doesn't use that word. Professor Bruce Lawrence of Duke University, the leading Bin Laden expert, does. He says the Fatty Bin Laden video is not only bogus, but that all his friends on the 24/7 Bin Laden detail in Homeland Security KNOW it is bogus. (Listen to Bruce Lawrence ridicule and debunk the Fatty Bin Laden "confession video.")

Maher argues that the Fatty Bin Laden video, which the US government and media have cited as alleged proof of Bin Laden's guilt, was forged by gathering Bin Laden footage from various filmings, one of them a US intelligence "sting operation," and cutting and pasting the footage in such a way as to make Bin Laden look guilty.

That wouldn't exactly surprise me.


Obviously the criminals who put out the OBL "confession video" did some cutting and pasting of low-grade "OBL footage," whether found or fabricated. Personally I think they probably found a fat guy who almost resembles a member of the Bin Laden family if you squint really, really hard, and hired him to do a really bad fake. Maher thinks the fat guy is actually Bin Laden. He explains the guy's obesity by citing an alleged funhouse mirror effect of digital compression. He thinks some of the original footage, but not all, was produced by an elaborate conspiracy of intelligence agents. Sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me. But crazier-sounding things have turned out to be true.

Maher, like many 9/11 researchers, is passionately attached to his chosen area of research. He is absolutely adamant that the bogus Fatty Bin Laden video was forged in the manner he suggests, rather than some other way.  The problem is, Maher has picked a meaningless fight with David Ray Griffin and Bruce Lawrence in an apparent attempt to obscure the indisputable fact that the video is indeed bogus - a forgery - and a clear case of obstruction of justice, incitement to genocide, and a long list of other crimes; and that Bin Laden was  obviously innocent of the crimes of 9/11/2001.

The title of Maher's article "How Osama was Caught Confessing to 9/11" is a typical example of the treasonous disinformation cranked out by Counterpunch, whose reasons for running interference for the 9/11 criminals could perhaps be discovered by waterboarding Alexander Cockburn. If he got the same treatment that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed got, Cockburn could easily be set up as a self-confessed 9/11 mastermind. Come to think of it, let's waterboard ALL the 9/11-traitor journalists until they confess to being 9/11 masterminds. That would be an appropriate punishment for their crime of not debunking the 9/11 Commission Report, whose preposterous "19 hijackers" fable is sourced to secondhand alleged reports from KSM's endless waterboardings.

Below are some claims Maher sent me (in italics) followed by my responses.

 On Oct 2, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Maher Osseiran wrote:
* Dr. Lawrence's statement that [the Fatty Bin Laden "confession video"] was bogus or a fake is based on hearsay. He based on statements by supposedly people in the know, some intelligence buddies; are we now placing our faith in the veracity of people in intelligence. Has Dr. Lawrence gone back to them and said, hey guys, look what this guy is saying, please weigh in. Example, if I had taken the word of those CIA guys that the Predator intentionally rammed the helicopter without any scrutiny, I would have pushed the article into the conspiracy theory area. In later article I did relate what they said and said that the incident is worthy of an investigation.

There is hearsay and there is hearsay. Dr. Lawrence, as someone with a prestigious scholarly position, risked his career to say what he said. (Look what happened to me!) He clearly would not say something so potentially destructive to his career and reputation if it were not true. And if there were even the slightest doubt (or perhaps even if there were not, but he just wanted to insuure his career and perhaps his life) he would retract his statement in the most clear and forceful way, and he would have done so immediately. Since he has not, the statement stands and is absolute "gold standard" for truth and accuracy.

* Please explain to me the intermingling of Predator part and Black Hawk parts with bin Laden's kids handling them.


Source?

Please explain to ME why, if this was really OBL, they'd throw the body in the ocean before any independent ID could be performed.


* Please explain to me how a portion of the tape has strictly digital anomalies while the other half has strictly analog anomalies.


It's a forgery badly stitched together from various kinds of footage. The details are interesting to speculate about, as you do, but that speculation is of very limited relevance, because any way you slice it, it's "bogus."


* Did you read "Osama's Confession; Osama's Reprieve" or just did a rush job.


Maher, I've read thousands and thousands of articles on these and related subjects. Let me go back and look at it.

Okay, I just looked at it. Yes, of course I read it when it came out. The documentation, which should include the dates, times, and transcripts or recordings of any interviews you did with sources that gave you this information, is grossly inadequate by scholarly standards. (Lawrence's statement, by contrast, is fully documented and, while hearsay, "gold standard" due to the improbability of its being false for reasons already mentioned.)


* Did you read "Enough is Enough" or just did a rush job? You don't seem to mention anything about Ed Haas' work. You guys all stuck like glue on the FBI statement and never bothered to mention anything about the total picture Ed Haas painted.


I don't find Ed's total picture necessarily convincing. [Ed Haas implies that the only reason not to support the illegal invasion of Afghanistan is because the Fatty Bin Laden tape is of doubtful provenance. Likewise Maher overestimates the importance of his own work on the tape. That tape is obviously "bogus" no matter how it was forged, and not especially important given that Bin Laden  couldn't possibly have demolished the WTC, bombed the Pentagon, run a shell game with airliners, etc.]


* Did you read his piece "Afghanistan; why I cannot support the war"? it was the last piece he wrote and summarizes all his findings.

The article is fine as far as it goes. But since we KNOW that Zelikow must have scripted the coverup from a script for the operation itself (presumably his own), that the WTC skyscrapers were demolitions, that no big plane hit the Pentagon or crashed in Shanksville, that there were no hijackers or hijackings, etc. etc.,  the whole Bin Laden - 9/11 connection is a moot issue anyway, and harping on it the way you do seems to be a disinformation operation intended to support the myth that Muslims, rather than the enemies of Muslims, might have somehow conducted the attack.


Finally, you believe the tape is a fake, I don't,


You claim it was stitched together from real home/sting video footage, out of context, in a way designed to make it look like Bin Laden is taking credit for 9/11.  That is just as "fake" as if it were completely digitally created.  No meaningful difference.  Either way, whoever created the final product is guilty of obstruction of justice in a case of mass murder and high treason.

but, in either case, since this tape was never authenticated, do you seen the need for an independent and transparent authentication process. If your answer is no, drop the open mindedness claim.

I would in the least expect you to call for an independent and transparent authentication process.


Again, since we know 9/11 was a false-flag attack by the enemies of Muslims, designed to trigger an anti-Muslim genocide, Bin Laden's statements on a tape that is an obvious forgery, whether produced the way you suggest or by other means, are irrelevant.   I could pay a department store Santa Claus to confess to 9/11, and it would link Santa to 9/11 in the same way discussion of this tape links OBL: at the level of myth, not reality.

Kevin