If you like this blog

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

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Who is Allen Ruff and why does he oppose Chuck Hagel?

Alleged "pro-Palestinian peacenik" and enemy of 9/11 truth Allen Ruff wants to defeat Chuck Hagel's nomination as Secretary of Defense. Why?

I got to know Allen Ruff - a big, dark, hulking, bearded, scowling bully who looks a bit like the old Zionist media caricatures of the late Ayatollah Khomeni, only about 100 pounds heavier - at pro-Palestine demonstrations in Madison, Wisconsin during the 1990s. 

Ruff took an instant dislike to me - if "dislike" isn't too weak a word. At first I couldn't figure out why. Gradually, it became apparent that Ruff was the leader of a gang of left-wing Jews who were trying to set themselves up as the local pro-Palestine movement - and police the thoughts, words, and deeds of Palestinians, Muslim students and other goyim.

As an articulate American Muslim who shares the near-unanimous position of the people of the Middle East - that "Israel" is a criminal enterprise, not a legitimate state - I must have rubbed Ruff the wrong way. He obviously didn't like me challenging his attempts to police the opinions of the foreign students and pro-Palestine activists. In particular, he was incensed at my suggestion that Palestinians make common cause with Americans rebelling against Israel's influence in the USA. Any reference to the "Israeli lobby," much less the "Jewish lobby," made Ruff explode in volcanic vituperation.

Any and all talk about how Israel dominates US policy, Ruff insisted, was anti-Semitic slander. He claimed that US policy was set by wealthy WASP imperialists, and certainly not by the poor, powerless pro-Israel Jews!

In 2004, Ruff's hatred for me exploded into near-psychosis when I began leading 9/11 truth teach-ins at the UW-Madison campus. Just hearing me assert that 9/11 was an inside job made him wax apoplectic - even more so than Kenneth Katzman!
Allen Ruff didn't like Mike Delaney's "Israel did 9/11" T-Shirt - so he assaulted him.

When I organized David Ray Griffin's 2005 "9/11 and American Empire" talk at UW-Madison, which was broadcast nationwide on C-SPAN, Ruff suffered a public meltdown. As I was standing at the podium about to introduce Griffin, Ruff approached me, his face twitching in homicidal rage, growling: "We're keeping a file on you! That's right, we're keeping a file on you!"

Immediately after the Griffin event -  a stunning success attended by almost 500 people - Ruff launched an internet hate campaign attempting to smear me and 9/11 truth as "anti-Semitic." He even falsely claimed that I had accused him of being a Mossad agent! This struck me as a very odd false accusation, coming from someone who had just threatened me that "We're keeping a file on you!" Was he protesting too much? (For the record, I doubt he's a paid Mossad agent; but he sure acts like an unpaid sayanim or "volunteer Mossad helper.")

When James Petras began doing his magnificent work outing the power of the Zionist lobby, and pointing out that the 9/11 wars were purely for Israel not oil, Ruff predictably tried to shoot Petras down.

Why would a self-styled radical leftist like Ruff try to take over a local pro-Palestine movement, steer it away from challenging or even naming the Zionist lobby, and fanatically oppose anyone who questions 9/11?

Today, the nomination of Chuck Hagel, the Senator "not from Israel, but from the US," suggests that Netanyahu's failed attempts to bully Obama may have created a backlash that will end US enslavement to Israel...and possibly even lead to massive cuts in military spending, thereby ending the 9/11 wars against Israel's enemies.

So predictably, Allan Ruff wrote a piece for The Progressive trying to convince "pwogwessives" (half-informed middlebrow leftists with good intentions) that they should oppose Hagel's nomination - a nomination that, more than anything any US president has done since JFK, signals a turn toward peace.

9/11 truth was the only quick way to end the 9/11 wars. Ruff fanatically opposed it, thereby lending his support to those wars.

Chuck Hagel's nomination signals a slow but inexorable end to the 9/11 wars. Ruff opposes Hagel, instead making common cause with the PNAC neocons, who are dedicated to keeping those wars going (not only to destroy Israel's enemies, but to keep a lid on 9/11).

Peace - for the US as well as the Middle East - will require breaking the back of the Israel lobby. Ruff is working overtime not only to protect the Israel lobby, which is led by the 9/11 perp neocons, but to reinforce the taboo against even admitting it exists.

Why is self-styled "peacenik" Allen Ruff working so hard to offer clandestine support to wars that have killed millions and displaced more than ten million people?


  1. Anyone who denies the obvious truth that 9/11 was undoubtedly carefully orchestrated by trotskyist-influenced Zionist Rosicrucians has their head in the sand. Arabs are incapable of such precision. Dozens of witnesses saw ATF agents wiring building 7 with explosive charges. But where are they now? It's obvious they've all been SILENCED. This Ruff character is a well-known polemicist on behalf of the conspiracy, and has been for many years.

  2. My problem with Allen isn't that he supports the official 9/11 myth, denies the power of the Zionist lobby, pretends the 9/11 wars are not primarily Israel-driven, disagrees with Gilad Atzmon, etc. My problem is that rather than debating these issues, he tries to shut down discussion of them through slander and bullying.

  3. https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Neocons-did-911/239525399425678

    The level of deliberate ignorance and shameless apathy, even among the so-called spiritual types and the so-called artists, is mindboggling.

    Study, study, study. Look, Listen and Learn BEFORE you respond.
    Speak to the facts. If you have evidence to the contrary, then bring it forward for all to see so that we can learn together.

    Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted.
    It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance.
    And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.

  4. Hi Kevin,

    Next time you debate Daniel Pipes you could mention that he suggested nuking Iran in this discussion with Ezra Levant:



  5. There is a bit of history being revealed for the first time in connection with Hagel's nomination: the report of spying by US Naval Intelligence Officer Jonathan Jay Pollard on behalf of Israel was declassified on 16th December 2012, presumably to blunt the attack by Israeli lobby on Hagel's nomination. See this report: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/01/13/israeli-spy-was-central-cog-in-nuclear-weapons-proliferation-alliance.html

  6. Hi Keven - I enjoy your articles. I met a man like your Allen Ruff when I was young, about 14 years old. He was a big, burly bearded Jewish guy named Keller. My best friend and I were hanging around a group of Christian Evangelicals. They believed in the rapture and spoke in tongues. The evangelicals were good people, but Keller was their leader, they looked up to Keller like he was a sage. I was only 14, but I took an instant dislike to Keller, and I don't think he liked me either. I remember his cold eyes. In later years I have come to believe that there were many Kellers out there leading these good evangelical Christians toward blind support for Israel. I believe the Christian Zionist movement was manufactured. I'll continue to read your articles with interest.

  7. We are talking about the same Chuck Hagel that is a member of the CFR, has attended the Bilderberg meetings twice, voted for the Patriot Act twice, voted for NDAA and voted in favor of the increased spending for war – aren’t we?!

  8. Terry, Chuck Hagel is obviously an insider. His nomination is significant because of what it tells us about the struggle between two factions of insiders – the neocon Zionist extreme-warmongers, and the “empire-lite” realists. It suggests the realists are winning. This could mean the difference between the neocon plan for ever-increasing military budgets and big wars (such as against Iran), versus the realist plan for a gradual draw-down of the US empire and its military spending and pointless killing, with more emphasis on “soft power” in service to US interests rather than Israeli interests.