If you like this blog

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

Thursday, December 31, 2009

Will 2010 Be the Year Americans Finally Fight Back?

"Why Aren't Americans Fighting Back?"

A non-US-citizen celebrates an attack on the CIA, and asks why Americans tolerate occupation

A foreign friend of mine, who must remain nameless here, recently contacted me to wish me a happy New Year and to celebrate the martyrdom operation in Afghanistan that claimed the lives of eight CIA agents. "This is wonderful!" he enthused. "Eight CIA agents at once! They must have had excellent intelligence and pulled everything off perfectly."

I said I found it hard to get excited about a bunch of people getting killed, regardless of what they may have done to deserve it.

"That is the problem with you Americans," he said. "Half of you are too stupid to resist your oppressors, and the other half reject violence even when it is justified and necessary."

I told him I was flattered to be considered part of the non-stupid segment of the American public, but that even as a non-stupid non-pacifist I often find it hard to know when violence is justified or necessary.

"If your country were invaded and occupied by a hostile foreign power, your people slaughtered and tortured, your women raped, your religion and customs violated, your resources looted, would violent resistance be justified and necessary?"

"Of course."

"So when the people of Afghanistan blow up eight CIA agents, are their actions justified and necessary?"

"From their point of view, sure."

"What about from your point of view?"

"As an American citizen, I'm trying to change things peacefully through legal, Constitutionally-protected means of protest."

"You would be much more effective if you built a real resistance movement and blew up CIA agents. Or better yet CIA directors."

I explained to him that I wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to go about blowing up a CIA director even if I wanted to. It's obviously a lot more complicated than "stick a fuse up his ass, light it, and run like hell." And not all CIA directors are 100% bad. Remember William Colby? And what about all those former CIA people who have spoken out for 9/11 truth? What if somebody had blown them up?

"Your country is occupied by CIA-Mossad and the finance mafia that runs it," he said. "They killed the Kennedies. They killed Martin Luther King, Jr. They killed Wellstone. They killed Gary Webb. They kill everyone that gets in their way. They start wars that kill millions. They rig your elections. They listen to your telephone conversations, read your emails, and use your cell phone as a roving microphone. They blackmail everyone of note, and if they can't blackmail them, they frame them or neutralize them or kill them. Every American President since Reagan has been a CIA agent. Your Constitution is a dead letter. It was dead long before 9/11."

I admitted that this was all true.

"Your country is under occupation. In Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and other places, when people are occupied, they fight back. Why won't Americans fight back?"

I explained that a lot of us are fighting back. It's called the infowar.

"Infowar is great," he said. "But it doesn't cost them enough to change their way of doing business. If you want a bad man to change his behavior, you have to give him some incentive for change. You have to raise the cost of the bad behavior until it becomes intolerable. A lot of grumbling on the internet doesn't really cost them very much."

What would be the best way to raise the cost, I asked. A general strike? Riots in the streets?

"Yes, those are time-honored methods," he said.

I explained that the whole point of the infowar is to wake enough people up so that some day soon, when the economy gets bad enough, people will take to the streets, and the cops and troops will be on our side...like the final scene in V-for-Vendetta.

"V wasn't afraid to use violence as part of his infowar," he said. "Nor are the people of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ireland, Somalia, the Basque country, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Yemen, and everywhere else on earth where people are fighting occupation by the global financiers and their hired guns.

"What counts is having a culture of resistance. Where there is a culture of resistance, everybody pitches in to help. Some people set off bombs or organize attacks on occupation forces. Others, the great majority, fight the infowar and build a support network for the actual fighters. Even the biggest pacifist, where there is a culture of resistance, helps the resistance fighters by providing food, clothing, money, shelter, and encouragement, and by misdirecting the authorities and refusing all cooperation with them and sabotaging them whenever the opportunity arises."

I asked why pacifists would be helping an armed resistance.

"Because they recognize that the violence is coming from the occupier, and that only attacks on the lives and property of the occupier can raise the cost of occupation high enough to end it."

"But most Americans don't perceive themselves as victims of a violent occupation," I said. "We of the smart half see ourselves as occupiers of other countries, while the dumb ones see themselves as potential victims of violent terrorists who attack us because they hate our freedoms."

"Forget the dumb half," he said. "You need to convince the smart half that they are not occupiers. Why should Americans identify with the evil assholes who are raping the planet? Americans are under violent occupation, just like the people of other occupied lands, and they should build an effective resistance. You need to convince them to start thinking of it as an actual war, not just an infowar. In an actual war, the only thing that matters is reducing the enemy's ability to wage war, and to raise the cost of his continuing to wage war until the cost becomes intolerable."

I said I had no idea how to do that. Wouldn't attacks on lives and property be counterproductive?

"It depends whose lives and property," he answered. "Attacking ordinary Americans in their passenger airplanes and office buildings helps the occupiers, not the resistance. That's why the occupiers are behind so much false-flag terrorism. But attacks on the leading men behind the occupation of planet Earth...now that could be very productive. Attacks on their property, kidnapping of their loved ones, and of course assassinations, these tactics would raise the price of their behavior. If the powerful men who craft the evil policies had to live in fear, they would have a powerful disincentive to continue crafting evil policies."

Kidnappings? Assassinations? Are you kidding?! That would be WRONG, I screamed, Nixonesque in my self-consciousness, that would be SO wrong! Why, the very idea! How utterly APPALLING! Don't you realize that the bad guys could be listening in even as we speak?!

My friend just chortled, remarked on what a hopeless bunch of boobs Americans are, told me that he wouldn't ask me to celebrate any more blastings of CIA agents, wished me well in my infowar, and went back to wherever he came from.

I chewed over his words for quite some time. I decided I'm not sure I entirely agree with him, but I'll tell you this: they'd have to waterboard me quite a bit before I'd give up his name.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

What's wrong (and right) with Judaism? Douglas Rushkoff will join me for some interfaith dialogue next month

Douglas Rushkoff is the author of many excellent books, most recently Life, Inc. Another key Rushkoff text is Coercion, which I reviewed here. We will discuss his 2003 book Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Jews and Judaism Tuesday, January 19th, 2010 on Fair and Balanced.

My original radio show, Truth Jihad Radio, started out on Republic Broadcasting Network--and my very first broadcast featured John Kaminski, an early 9/11 truth supporter and writer of fiery op-eds. Halfway through the show, Kaminski started ranting against Jews and Judaism. I argued with him for awhile. RBN owner John Stadtmiller even came on and told Kaminski to "cool it, I don't want the ADL on my ass!" That just got Kaminski even more riled up. Finally Stadtmiller suggested I kick Kaminski off the air, which I proceeded to do. It was my first-ever show, and the first and last time I ever kicked a guest off the air. (It was also the last time I let someone else choose my radio guests for me.)

Since then, I have noticed that there is a vocal minority of people in the patriot radio community who dislike Judaism and/or Jews. These people fail to heed Adrian Salbuchi's common-sense observation that Judaism, Zionism, and the state of Israel are three different things.

If it weren't for Zionism and the criminal policies of the Israeli regime, such people would be far less numerous. Muslims, in particular, would be more likely to notice positive aspects of Judaism if their holy places were not the site of a genocidal occupation by a self-proclaimed "Jewish" state.

So...ask me about Zionism or Israel, and I have a simple answer: I'm agin' it. Ask me about Judaism, and we're in more complex and nuanced territory. My first question is, "which Judaism? The Judaism of child-killer rabbis, or the Judaism of Naturei Karta or Ken Biegeleisen or Douglas Rushkoff?" The three radically different approaches to Judaism of NK, Biegeleisen and Rushkoff all strike me as highly admirable, in different ways and for different reasons. At the root of all three approaches is an iconoclastic moral serious that is deeply rooted in the Jewish tradition, and which should be celebrated by Jews and non-Jews alike.

Rushkoff's book Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism earned rave reviews from the likes of Naomi Wolf, and angry diatribes from those Rushkoff might characterize as Jewish fundamentalists and unreflective Zionists. Rushkoff argues that Judaism is best regarded as an open-source code built around the central idea of an utterly transcendent, universal deity characterized by absolute oneness, the affirmation of which "amounts to a declaration of the unity of the universe" (10). Wait a minute -- that sounds a whole lot like Islam, whose core ideas are God's transcendence, universality, and oneness, and whose code is as open-source as it gets thanks to its rejection of any form of priesthood or rabbinate. Perhaps the resemblance is not purely coincidental, since Islam came to reaffirm the truth of the earliest prophets' message, not replace it.

In Nothing Sacred, Rushkoff argues that Judaism's core message -- iconoclasm, monotheism, and social justice -- has gotten lost in the post-Holocaust rush to Zionism and other neo-orthodoxies and fundamentalisms. It is a trenchant critique, as well as an appealing vision of what Judaism (and monotheism in general) ought to be.

I am tempted to apply Rushkoff's critique of Jewish fundamentalism to the contemporary Islamic scene, which is also plagued by various forms of obscurantism. One major difference, however, is that Islam is currently under attack by non-Muslim imperialist and colonialist powers--led by the Jewish Zionists--which makes it hard to fault those who rally around local cultural traditions, some of which they falsely equate with Islam, as part of their strategy of resistance. Telling a person whose culture is under genocidal attack to give up that culture, and adopt a more universal one, is tantamount to supporting the genocide. Or to put it another way: When a Westerner says to a Native American/Iraqi/Palestinian/Afghani "accept our liberal, tolerant, universalist way of life or we'll kill you!" I reach for my revolver.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

The global war on us


A New World War would be a global war waged by a global ruling class against the citizens of the world, with the aim of maintaining and reshaping hierarchical society to serve their own interests. It would indeed symbolize a New World War for a New World Order. In a globalized world, all conflict has global implications; the task at hand is whether the people can realize that war is not waged against a “distant” or “foreign” enemy, but against all people of the world. - A New World War for a New World Order The Origins of World War III: Part 3  by Andrew Gavin Marshall

There is a world war going on, and you, dear reader, are caught in the middle of it. No, that's not quite right. You are not in the middle. You are on the receiving end. It is a war of aggression, and you are the target.

A rapacious elite cabal has declared war against the people of earth, and the other life forms of earth as well. The only question that remains is, are you going to defend yourself? Or are you going to let them kill you and your planet?

I know this isn't a pretty thought. If all we ask of life is pretty thoughts, we can stick our heads in the sand and think anything we like until the ostrich-hunter mows us down.

War has a bad name, and justly so. If we could efface the reality by removing all verbal traces of war, violence, and aggression from our language, I would happily comply.

But when people are actually under attack, as we are, they are faced with an immediate existential choice: fight back or die. Fight back or let everything you love -- not just you but your family, your community, your ecosystem, your planet -- be destroyed.

This, in the end, is why 9/11 truth is so important. Most Westerners who buy the official version of 9/11 inevitably also buy the equally absurd fiction that the psychopathic elite's "war on terror" is against their enemies, not against them. When they realize that the masters of empire murdered  almost 3,000 people on 9/11, among them a great many Americans and Westerners, they will also realize that those of us who live in the West are, like the Palestinians and Iraqis and Afghanis, living under a murderous occupation by a mass-murdering psychopathic elite. And they will also realize that, like the Palestinians and Iraqis and Afghanis, we must fight back with everything we have.





Monday, December 14, 2009

We're coming for your house next, Arnie!


Arnold Schwartzenegger says the protesters who vandalized University of California President Robert Birgeneau's campus home are "terrorists." People like Arnie are saying similar things about the guy who whacked Italian fascist leader Berlusconi with a statue, breaking his nose and chipping some teeth.

I'm not surprised that a planet-killing psychopath like Arnie would talk like that. What IS surprising is that so many people who understand just how psychopathic our leaders are cannot bring themselves to cheer for protesters who mess up a University President's house or Il Duce's face.

Top US leaders, the world's biggest terrorists, are responsible for murdering millions of people in Iraq alone. To get even with such a leader, we would have to murder him millions of times...WHOA THERE! Though we are clearly within the realm of fantasy here--murdering someone more than once is not very realistic--the mere thought is enough to get most people's inner Secret Service agent kicking in the door to their skulls: "Stop! You can't even fantasize about that!"

Why have we been trained to react with horror and revulsion even to fantasies of violent attacks on psychopathic mass murderers who happen to be powerful...while we ignore the millions of murders by soldiers and cops on behalf of the psychopathic elite? The answer is that the powers that be want to maintain their monopoly of violence, because if their opponents are willing to use violence when it is effective, it will level the playing field and threaten their power, which rests on a preposterous claim to a monopoly on violence.

The truth is that the use or threat of violence by resistance forces often IS effective. I remember how amazed I was when I arrived at the Universite de Paris VIII in 1988 and discovered that universities in France were tuition-free. How could that be, I asked? My French colleagues patiently explained to me that every time the government tried to levy even a token tuition, students rioted in the streets, burning cars, smashing shop windows and battling the cops. After a few days of this, the authorities always relented and gave up their plans to charge tuition.

In a similar vein, the Rev. Frank Martinez of St. Mark's Church in New York City once explained to me how he and his friends had stopped a wave of police brutality. They had tried everything -- protests in front of the police station, press conferences with victims beaten within an inch of their lives, angry letters to the editor, and so on -- but nothing worked. Finally, someone had the idea of seeking out the offending officers' home addresses and putting up "wanted for police brutality" posters featuring the abusive cops' photos and home addresses along with brief descriptions of their evil deeds, and scheduling protests outside the officers' homes. The day those posters started going up, Martinez said, the NYPD suddenly became very cooperative, suspending some rogue officers and moving others out of the neighborhoods they had been abusing and into desk jobs. The moral: an implicit or explicit threat of violence is often the only way to deter a powerful psychopath.

People who put up with their tax dollars being used to murder millions of innocents, but who flinch at the idea of physically assaulting a fascist war criminal like Berlusconi, are suffering from a bizarre but very prevalent form of schizoid delusion. All such people should immediately read Endgame by Derrick Jensen, who shows with searing clarity how the common activists' insistence on "nonviolence" can be a debilitating neurosis. An extract:

"It is pretty clear to me that our horror of violence is actually a deep terror of responsibility. We don't have issues with someone being killed. We have issues about unmediated killing, about doing it ourselves. And of course we have issues with violence flowing the wrong way up the hierarchy." (Endgame v.2, p.685)

Violence SHOULD start flowing "the wrong way up the hierarchy," and ASAP.  The top of the hierarchy is perpetrating the most obscene forms of mass violence on an ongoing basis, and the people lower down need to start figuring out how to use violence, and the threat of violence, more effectively against the psychopathic mass murderers at the top.

The pathocracy invented the "terrorism" witch hunts in order to demonize anyone who resists their violence with violence, who turns violence back against the real perpetrators, who sends violence back "the wrong way up the hierarchy." Why? Because that's precisely what they're afraid of. They want us to "embrace nonviolence" and thereby prevent ourselves from ever posing a real threat to their power.

Yes, I do support all sorts of nonviolent resistance activities. I respect nonviolent activists, and my activism is of course 100% nonviolent and legal (since I obviously wouldn't be stupid enough to blog about any part of it that wasn't.) 

But I do confess to joining Fans of the Guy Who Hit Berlusconi.

And to admiring the kids who trashed Birgeneau's house.

And to imagining how cool it would be to burn down the Governor's mansion and kick Schwartzenegger's "terrorist" ass...and then mete out similar treatment to the 9/11 traitors and all other members of the psychopathic elite that Barrie Zwicker calls "the diabologarchy."

I'm not going to let the Orwellian brain police storm into my head and tell me I'm not allowed to have those feelings.

I do have them.

Maybe you should too.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Et tu, "young debunka"?!


This is a response to "Debunking Dad" whose first post, "Pull It," argues that Larry Silverstein was talking about pulling firefighters out of the building.

Sorry DD, but I'm gonna have to school ya!

As you know I'm an English teacher as well as a homeschool dad. So it is my professional duty to point out some errors in your blog post.

First, when you put words in quotation marks, they should be the words actually spoken by the person you are quoting. Adding your own interpretations in brackets is normally a bad idea.  It is usually preferable to just give the quote, then explain what you think it means.

More to the point, your interpretation that Silverstein was talking about pulling firemen out of WTC-7 is implausible. WTC-7's perfectly symmetrical 6.5 second collapse happened around 5:20 p.m. on 9/11/01 (twenty minutes after it had been prematurely announced by the BBC!) There were no firefighters to "pull" from WTC-7 that afternoon, because the firefighters were not allowed to enter the building. If you google around you will find videos of firefighters talking about how crazy it was that they were ordered NOT to enter WTC-7 and put out the relatively small fires.

Along with the fact that there were no firefighters in WTC-7 to pull out, please note that the idiomatic English construction exemplified by "we did X and then watched Y" normally refers to events that occur in very close temporal succession and have some kind of causal link. For example: "We pulled the marshmallows out of the fire and then watched their swollen brown surfaces exude thick, sweet smoke." In this instance, as in most other instances with this construction, the watching happens immediately after the pulling, and what is seen is the effect of what was pulled. Another example: "We pulled out of the driveway and then watched our house fade from view." Here, as in the marshmallow example, what was seen closely follows from what was done, both temporally and causally.

Imagine: You say "We pulled out of the driveway and then watched Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory on TV."  I say "huh?" You explain, "What I meant was that we pulled out of the driveway to go to school in the morning, and then that same evening we watched the TV show." Sorry, that doesn't parse,  because there is no close temporal or causal connection between the two events.

Getting back to the Silverstein quote: There could not possibly be a causal connection, because pulling people from a high-rise doesn't cause it to collapse. And there could not possibly be a close temporal connection, because there were no firefighters in WTC-7 immediately before the collapse (nor were there any during the hours before it.)

Finally, if he were talking about pulling firemen out, he would have used the pronoun "they," not "it."

For all of these reasons, Silverstein's quote only makes sense if he was talking about "pulling" as in "demolishing" the building.

Why would Silverstein admit to demolishing a building whose demolition would earn him 700 million dollars in insurance fraud money, based on the false idea that it collapsed as the result of a terrorist attack?

The best hypothesis is that when Silverstein was interviewed for the America Rebuilds video, he and the other perps hadn't yet gotten their story straight about WTC-7. Something obviously went wrong with their plan, since they cannot have planned to demolish WTC-7 in front of cameras at 5:20 p.m.  They probably planned to have it hit by Flight 93, which was shot down before it got there. Or perhaps they were going to take it down under the cover of the dust clouds from the demolished Towers. In any case, when Silverstein did this interview, he probably couldn't imagine that anyone could plausibly claim that such an obvious controlled demolition was anything else. So he nervously tried to make up an excuse about it being demolished to prevent further loss of life.

When Silverstein mentions the "er, fire department commander" he hesitates noticeably, suggesting that he knew that person under a different designation. In fact, the chain of command in the NYFD on 9/11 was probably altered by the insertion of FEMA personnel (or 9/11 conspirators in those roles) supposedly due to the massive Tripod 2 bio-terror exercise scheduled for 9/12/01. So the acting "Fire Department commander" was probably a federal official who was part of the 9/11 operation.

Note that Silverstein credits himself with the idea for conducting the demolition. This is not entirely implausible, since Silverstein is a billionaire kingpin in the  Zionist mafia that seems to have played a major role in 9/11, especially in New York. For some background on Silverstein and his accomplices, google "Pakalert Press Israel did 9/11 all the proof in the world."

Finally, I would be remiss in my duties as a homeschool dad if I failed to point out that you have a sentence fragment in the second paragraph of your post, and that "lets" is missing an apostrophe.

So...nice try, and "keep on debunking!"

Love, Dad

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Accused 9/11 plotters may face NY "Guantanamo" - Reuters


Accused 9/11 plotters may face NY "Guantanamo" - Reuters

KSM and the False-Confession Five are obviously not guilty, as Rolf Lindgren and I have shown in our exhaustive annihilation of the federal charges. What's more, the vast majority of the world's Muslims know they're not guilty:

"On average less than one in four [Muslims worldwide] believes al Qaeda was responsible for September 11th attacks. Pakistanis are the most skeptical--only 3 percent think al Qaeda did it."  -WorldPublicOpinion.org survey

Yet the Reuters report tells us these obviously innocent men who have had their souls destroyed by incessant torture will continue to be tortured in New York, where they "can expect solitary confinement, 23-hour-a-day lockdowns, constant video surveillance and almost no visitors."

Since hardly any Muslims believe that al-Qaeda in general or these guys in particular did 9/11, why so much security? Is the real purpose of isolating these defendants and destroying their minds to make sure that they don't get an adequate defense, which would easily prove them innocent?

 

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Lennon was shot 29 years ago today


In honor of John Lennon, who was murdered by probable CIA mind-control victim Mark David Chapman 29 years ago today, I'm relinking an old essay which I'm developing into my next book:

Twilight of the Psychopaths

Also re-linking the media coverage of John Lennon endorsing my congressional campaign:

Taking a page from Russ Feingold's 1992 "endorsement" from Elvis Presley, Barrett got Tim Biancalana, a dead ringer for John Lennon, to perform at the Dardanelles. About 30 people attended the event and watched the 2006 documentary, "The U.S. vs. John Lennon."

Speaking of Lennon, Truth Jihad Radio just celebrated its third birthday. The show still features the exact same John Lennon bumper music, starting with Gimme Some Truth, that it started out with on RBN.

Okay, enough Lennon!

Getting back to late 2009...

Hot news flash! Rolf Lindgren and I just annihilated the entire list of charges against the six 9/11 patsies! For the complete 17,000-word article, visit my main website,  TruthJihad.com.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Why no attacks since 9/11-anthrax?


The 9/11 truth movement says the official story of 9/11 makes no sense: skyscrapers imploding from relatively small office fires, 767s being flown by amateurs with pinpoint precision almost 600 mph at sea level (faster than the plane's maximum physically possible speed at that altitude), alleged crash sites that look nothing like crash sites, alleged hijackers who got on the planes without being caught on security videos and without any boarding passes and without being seen by any airline personnel and without showing up on any official passenger lists...and then turning up alive afterwards! I could go on like this, and often do.

If the official story of 9/11 itself is bizarre, the official meta-narrative around the events is even weirder. We are supposed to believe that back in 2001, an al-Qaeda cell in the US displayed extreme military competence in pulling off this spectacular, highly improbable attack. Yet since then, we have seen absolutely no evidence of any competently-planned attempts to attack the US "homeland," except for the anthrax attack, which the US government admits was a false-flag attempt to incriminate Muslims perpetrated by a US germ warfare scientist.

What makes this situation even more bizarre is that for every angry Muslim who wanted to harm the US back in 2001, there must be several thousand today. If 9/11 was really pulled off by a militarily ultra-competent al-Qaeda cell, there should be thousands of such cells operating in the US in 2009. And since Muslims now have so many more reasons to join al-Qaeda's jihad -- the criminal wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan for starters -- many more highly intelligent, realistic Muslims should be joining al-Qaeda now than back then. That means that there should be tens of thousands of al-Qaeda cells in the US right now, most of them far more competent than any 2001 cell.

Remember, al-Qaeda is not a centrally organized outfit. It's an unregulated franchise operation.  Anybody can start a franchise (including intelligence agencies hostile to the cause). The fact that Bin Laden has probably been dead since 2001 will not stop angry Muslims and Mossad spooks  alike from starting "al-Qaeda" franchises. So if US officials claim they have "disrupted" al-Qaeda by busting a few of the pre-2001 jihadis, and this explains why there have been no attacks since the admittedly false-flag anthrax attack, they're either out of their minds or lying through their teeth. I repeat: for every pre-2001 Muslim angry enough to want to do harm to the US, there are thousands now, thanks to the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If 9/11 had actually been the work of an al-Qaeda cell, would top US officials really adopt a policy aimed at producing tens of thousands of such cells?  Al-Qaeda, remember, thrives on anger at the Zio-American proxy occupation of key Islamic countries, as well as US support for Israel. The post-9/11 US wars of aggression in the region, and increased US support for Israel, are increasing than anger exponentially.

The 9/11 alleged hijackers were supposedly brilliant enough to defeat US air defenses, yet too stupid to just crash their plane into the nuclear reactor they were flying over, which could have provoked a Chernobyl-style meltdown and killed tens of thousands. Instead, they supposedly helped the city of New York and the Jewish mob that controls it, including billionaire mobster Larry Silverstein, cheaply demolish the biggest obsolete, asbestos-riddled white elephants in architectural history.

Hani Hanjour, a "terrible pilot" who could not even solo in a Cessna, was supposedly brilliant enough to slip by all of our AWOL air defenses and perform an amazing stunt maneouver to hit the Pentagon...yet too stupid to just dive into the roof toward the opposite side of the building, thereby killing thousands including Rumsfeld and other top brass.

If the US continues to demonstrate that it is an utterly bankrupt, decadent, immoral society firmly grounded in big lies and governed by a covert dicatorship of usurers, and if it continues to murder Muslims by the millions in criminal wars of aggression, and if it continues to kidnap and torture the best and brightest Muslim activists here and around the world (think Aafia Siddiqi, Moazzam Begg, and Sami al-Arian for starters), and if it continues to support Zionist genocide in Palestine, and if it continues to cover up the fact that American Zionists and imperialists, not Muslims, orchestrated the 9/11 attacks...the result, inevitably, will be that an ever-growing number of competent and dedicated people will wish to do it harm.

Conclusion: The best insurance against future terrorism is 9/11 truth.

* * *

*Note: As former CIA Bin Laden unit chief Michael Scheuer has repeatedly pointed out, al-Qaeda's aims are to eject US and Zionist forces from the Muslim world (including Occupied Palestine), eliminate the nation-states carved into being by the Western colonizers, and re-unite the Muslim ummah as a single nation. The vast majority of the world's Muslims agrees with those aims.
Where most Muslims disagree with al-Qaeda is in tactics: the Muslim majority holds to Islamic religious prohibitions against harming civilians, while at least some al-Qaeda sympathizers argue that the butchery of millions of Muslim civilians by the Zio-Americans legitimizes a certain amount of retaliation in kind. The bigger the outrages committed against Muslims, the more likely that some will abandon religous prohibitions against harming civilians and engage in terrorism. Therefore, the extreme outrages perpetrated against Muslims by the post-9/11 US and Israel should be seen as attempts to greatly increase al-Qaeda terrorism, not attempts to reduce or eliminate it.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Is the anti-war movement racist?


Don't get me wrong, I love the peace movement. I especially like the upcoming End US Wars rally in Washington, DC December 12th: http://www.enduswars.org/ .

But a lot of the white, middle-class people in the peace movement have a great big blind spot.

Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man describes a black man who is socially invisible in the white world. Splitting-the-Sky, the native American peace-and-justice warrior who is putting George Bush on trial in an act of civil resistance, seems to be equally invisible to much of the white, middle-class peace movement.

This guy should be getting the kind of publicity Cindy Sheehan got when she dogged Bush for murdering her son. But maybe because he's Native American, Splitting-the-Sky gets disinvited from mainstream peace rallies, even though he's just about the fieriest rabble-rousing speaker since Malcolm X.

Maybe Splitting-the Sky is too much of a revolutionary (he's been in armed conflict with the authorities more than once). Maybe he's too frank, too fearless, too in-your-face honest. Maybe he's just too real. Reality scares a lot of white middle-class people...especially the reality of 9/11, which Splitting-the-Sky exposes so eloquently and mercilessly.

Many unconscious racists on the liberal/left side of the political spectrum politely avert their eyes when informed by a non-white that 9/11 was an inside job. (Interesting how most African-Americans were suspicious from the get-go, while most whites fell for the official myth.)

Three-quarters of the world's Muslims, and 97% of the people in Pakistan (where al-Qaeda is supposedly hiding) say flat-out that al-Qaeda didn't do 9/11. When I point this out to white middle-class people, they just shrug, scoff, brush it off, or belittle the point. Their attitude is obvious: "Who cares what Muslims think?" The corollary: "They're just brown-skinned people, inferior beings, whose thoughts are of no consequence."

Wait a minute! This escalating war is supposedly targeting al-Qaeda, the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, who are supposedly in Pakistan. Those brown-skinned "inferior beings" in Pakistan are able to build their own nuclear weapons, so they can't be all THAT dumb. And yet the fact that 97% of them say al-Qaeda--a group they know much better than we do--didn't do 9/11, somehow doesn't matter?

If Western whites viewed the world's Muslims as equals, rather than brown-skinned inferiors, they would respond to that vast Muslim majority that says al-Qaeda didn't do 9/11 by demanding an immediate, comprehensive, exhaustive, fully funded investigation of 9/11 focusing on the possibility of official complicity.

Instead, Western whites have covered their ears and eyes, sung "la-la-la," and murdered more than a million Muslims.

It doesn't get any more racist than that.

Monday, November 30, 2009

Hey Obama: Surge THIS!


Since when did warmonger presidents start getting Nobel Peace Prizes?

Since 9/11.

Since when did America start staging Stalinist show trials?

Since 9/11.

Since when did American public universities blacklist people like Steven Jones and myself for pursuing "subversive" research?

Since 9/11.

Since when did the USA wage multiple simultaneous wars of naked aggression, in defiance of international law?

Since 9/11.

Since when did the international banksters think they could openly steal $26 trillion from the taxpayers and get away with it?

Since 9/11.

Since when did extremist Israeli Likudniks gain a complete lock over all three branches of the formerly American government?

Since 9/11.

Since when did the US government decide it could ignore the 4th Amendment prohibition of searches and seizures without a warrant?

Since 9/11.

Since when did the NSA decide its job was to spy on Americans?

Since 9/11.

Since when did Americans start torturing people as a matter of public policy, and using the false confessions extracted by torture in Stalinist show trials?

Since 9/11.

Since when did YOU decide you were going to put up with all this, instead of doing what the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine are doing and actually fighting back?

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Thank God for William S. Burroughs














May his truth-telling outweigh his sins on judgment day.

A Thanksgiving Prayer by William S. Burroughs

I once asked Burroughs about the eerie resemblance between the mind-control spooks in his books and CIA programs like MK Ultra and Operation Artichoke. Did he know about those programs back in the early 60's, when they were still secret? He replied in that slow, enigmatic, slightly scornful monotone drawl: "Most of these 'secrets' are not really so secret."

If he were alive today, he'd say the same thing about Operation 9/11.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

"James B" : Abject avatar of sheer feckless cowardice


Many people whose time really IS valuable are happy to join me on my radio shows.  These folks include regular guest Lynn Margulis, one of the most important scientists of the century (next appearance December 5th); John Cobb, one of the world's leading theologians; Richard Falk, a top international law expert who is very busy these days as the U.N.'s Special Rapporteur for Palestine; William Pepper and Francis Boyle, two other first-rank international law experts; critical 9/11 scholars David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Webster Tarpley, and many more; bestselling authors including John Perkins, Steve Alten, Jesse Ventura; a very long list of professors of a great many subjects; and...well, you get the idea.

Yet some parasitic nobody who calls himself "James B." pretends to be either too busy, or too ungenerous with his time, to debate me on the radio.  For the full record of our correspondence, go to the comments here and scroll down. Below is my disgusted goodbye to this embarrassing representative of his species.

Kevin Barrett has left a new comment on your post "Why KSM's Innocence Matters":


..."James B.," afraid to use his last name, takes cyber-cowardice to a new level. Hiding behind a monitor somewhere, he spends his life puking out scurrilous & vacuous attacks on the leaders of a movement he pretends to despise -- yet his whole identity depends on his parasitic relationship with that movement! Like all the other cyber-phonies and cyber-stalkers out there, he's afraid to even confront his targets voice-to-voice, much less face-to-face. He's just another celebrity stalker -- the pathetic nobodies who spend their lives writing angry letters to the famous people they have a secret crush on -- except that unlike them, "James B." is too cowardly to use his real name, or to even speak with his targets when they stoop to offer him the opportunity. As abject avatars of sheer feckless cowardice go, this guy is pretty impressive. This will be the last you hear from "James B." on this blog.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Case against KSM and five co-defendants is falling apart!

A colleague of mine is currently dismantling the charges against KSM and his False Confession Five. The detailed deconstruction of the whole absurd list of "criminal acts" the patsies are charged with, such as taking airline trips, sending and receiving money, and doing other things that just about everybody else does, will be published soon -- hopefully tomorrow -- right here at Truth Jihad Blog.

Meanwhile, don't miss Paul Craig Roberts, Reagan's top economic advisor, ripping into the Stalinist show trials in NY:  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Trial Will Convict Us All by Paul Craig Roberts

My earlier article, Why KSM's Innocence Matters, is generating a lot of heated debate including a long list of comments--scroll down for my challenges to "debunker" James B. to debate me on the radio, and his unbelievably lame attempts to weasel out.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Webster Tarpley on current wave of false-flags & Islamophobia


Webster Tarpley will return to my radio show  Tuesday, December 15th, to discuss his important article Major Hasan of Ft. Hood: Patsy in a Drill Gone Live?, his diagnosis of expanding US false-flag bombings in Pakistan, and the question of whether all of this portends the long-awaited 911-2B.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-Y9Hl2TyC4

Historian Webster Tarpley talks with Dina Gusovsky of Russia Today in Washington DC about very plausible Taliban charges that the CIA and Blackwater are behind the recent bombing atrocity in Peshawar, Pakistan. This attack is coherent with the US policy of provoking all-out civil war in Pakistan to break up that country to prevent it from serving as an energy corridor between Iran and China. The Pakistani Taliban are a proxy of the CIA. If the government in Islamabad collapses completely, or especially if Taliban forces appear to be taking control of some of Pakistan's nuclear forces, Wall Street could also get something it would like very much: a spectacular world shock that could send the world's hot money fleeing into the supposed safe haven of the US dollar, which is otherwise near collapse. Inside the US, a wave of Islamophobia is being ginned up with the Fort Hood shootings, the KSM trial in New York CIty, the seizure of allegedly pro-Iranian mosques, the Zazi case, and the incendiary anti-Moslem statements of Pat Robertson, the patron of the new reactionary governor of Virginia. Obama is expected to announce another massive escalation of US forces in Afghanistan within days.

If a Wall Street-CIA Operation Safe Haven is indeed at hand, it could also include a coup in Saudi Arabia, or a clash between Saudi Arabia and Iran over the civil war in Yemen. An Israeli attack on Iran, although much discussed, remains the least likely variation, with Pakistan still at the top of the US hit list.

Webster G. Tarpley is the author of Surviving the Cataclysm:Your Guide Through the Greatest Financial Crisis in Human History (2009), Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography (2008), and Obama: The Postmodern Coup - The Making of a Manchurian Candidate (2008). All are available through tarpley.net.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Zionist war on Islam is also a war on America




From Asia Times:

"The other regional players [read China] are busily setting the stage for exploitation of Afghanistan's natural resources, while the US remains bogged down with the war. This should change," (former CIA Pakistan Station Chief Milton) Bearden said (to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee).

Two weeks ago, when the Associated Press broke the story, it quoted leading American think-tanker and author, Robert Kaplan, "The world isn't fair. A worse outcome to staying and helping the Chinese would be withdrawing and losing a great battle in the war against radical Islam."


Here we have two clashing views: the former American, the latter Zionist. The American, Milton Bearden, who oversaw the US-Islamist alliance against Soviet imperial-colonial repression of the Muslims of Central Asia during the 1980s, realizes that the war in Afghanistan, like the war in Iraq, is completely, self-destructively insane when considered from the standpoint of the U.S. national interest. The latter, Robert Kaplan, a Jewish Zionist agent who once wrote a virtual Mossad dossier on those Americans smart enough to learn Arabic and support the Arab anti-Zionist cause, doesn't care if the US destroys itself while destroying Af-Pak. The only thing Kaplan cares about is the "great battle in the war against radical Islam." That war, of course, is a war for Israel.

Anybody who has taken Geopolitics 101 knows that the prime US foreign policy objective is to prevent the rise of a nation or bloc that could dominate the Eurasian land mass. The rising nation today is China, a new superpower with a 10% growth rate. And the dangerous (to US interests) bloc is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which adds Russian energy resources and nuclear weapons to the mix.

If it were rationally pursuing its own interests, the U.S. would be trying to help other powers act as counterweights to the development of a potentially hostile Eurasian bloc. The only sensible way to do that would be to support "radical Islam," not fight it. Let me explain why.

When the Zionists and their dupes speak of "radical Islam," what they really mean is not the crazy, isolated terrorist groups, most of them run by Mossad and other Zionist-influenced intelligence agencies, that target their fellow Muslims. What the Zionists are mortally afraid of is the Islamic world becoming politically united and economically and technologically successful.

The movement to rebuild the Islamic nation, the umma, is supported by a strong majority of Muslims worldwide: "Two-thirds (of of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims) would even like to 'unify all Islamic counties into a single Islamic state or caliphate.'" (WorldPublicOpinion.org)


If the US really wants to support democracy in the Middle East, it should throw its support behind that majority of Muslims, and help pave the road to a newly-united Islamic umma. A newly-united caliphate would be the natural ally of the US, which would help it control and protect its energy resources against possible threats from energy-hungry China and nuclear-armed Russia and India. A newly-empowered, US-allied caliphate would use its oil wealth to become one of the world's top three superpowers, alongside the US and China, ahead of Russia and India. It would be a key stabilizing force in a peaceful multi-polar world order. And it would be, among the big powers, the closest US ally.

Why isn't the US actively helping the world's Muslims re-unite their umma? Why is the US in fact fighting a brutal and deceptive war to smash and destroy key parts of the Muslim world, and to prevent any such reunification and re-empowerment?

The answer is obvious: This war on Islam is being waged by a fanatical minority of Zionists who have used their power in finance, media, political money, and organized crime to essentially take over the US and turn it against its own interests, as well as the interests of the world's Muslims.

The Zionists know that if Muslims gain even a tiny fraction of the power they ought to have, relative to their proportion of the world's population, Israel as a Jewish apartheid state is finished.

That is why the heavily-Zionist-influenced media churns out Islamophobic fantasies 24/7/365. And that is why the Zionists have duped the U.S. into a war on Islam, disguised as a self-evidently-absurd "war on terror," launched by the 9/11 coup d'etat.

 It is time for patriotic Americans to rise up and overthrow the Zionist facist regime that overthrew our government and burned our Constitution on September 11th, 2001. And it is time for Americans to demand a rational foreign policy that takes account of American interests, rather than being subservient to the interests of Zionism.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Help Galileo give NIST the finger!

Facebook users: sign the petition to help Galileo give NIST the finger here


The recent discovery of Galileo's middle finger, chopped rudely from his corpse in 1737 and presumed lost since 1905, raises a thorny question: What should be done with the historic digit? Some say rebury it; some say put it in a museum. But I think that if Galileo were alive today, he would want to give it to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) -- by flipping it to them in the form of the digitus impudicus. 

NIST hasn't declared that the Sun revolves around the earth (not yet, anyway). But the NIST report on the Twin Towers, and the even more ludicrous one on World Trade Center Building 7, may be the most egregious examples of scientific fraud in history, dwarfing such cases as the phony stem cell research of a guy named Suk and his more than 15 accomplices. (If you think Suk's research sucks, wait till you see NIST's!) 

Galileo was endlessly annoyed by opponents who fallaciously argued from authority, refusing even to look through his telescope, while denying the existence of the moons of Jupiter. Likewise, NIST's case rests on authority ("would our leaders deceive us? we're scientists, believe us!") and the refusal to look at any of the overwhelming evidence for controlled demolition, including molten metal, unexploded nanothermite in the WTC dust, explosive ejections of multi-ton steel beams, and much more. 

One-upping Galileo's opponents, NIST even had the gall to claim that it had found no evidence for controlled demolition because -- it later admitted -- it didn't look for it! The only conceivable response to that argument is to give NIST Galileo's middle finger.   

Help give NIST the finger -- sign the petition!

Friday, November 20, 2009

Why KSM's Innocence Matters


By opting to try 9/11 patsy-in-chief Khaled Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court, the left wing of the 9/11 cover-up team has made a huge, high-stakes gamble. They are, as Obama absurdly blurted out, betting that KSM will be found guilty by a jury. But they are also betting that the 9/11 truth movement--which knows that KSM cannot possibly have demolished the World Trade Center with nanothermite, held the president in a known location in Florida reading about goats to kids during an alleged surprise attack, and ordered a stand-down of the US Air Force--will not use the case to draw attention to its cause.

If they win their bet and the KSM trial ends in a guilty verdict, with no visible protest from the 9/11 truth movement, the history books will record that "confessed 9/11 mastermind KSM was convicted by a jury and sentenced to death." For most Americans, that will mean "case closed." The official story will stand in the history books. "Finally, we have closure."

If, on the other hand, 9/11 truth-seekers--joined by Constitution supporters, anti-torture advocates, and honest journalists who understand that KSM was tortured into demonstrably false confessions--make a hugely visible stink about this grotesque miscarriage of justice, history's verdict will not be so cut-and-dried. And if KSM is found innocent, as he clearly will be if the jury follows the law and uses logic and evidence to arrive at their decision, the 9/11 case will suddenly be wide-open again.

That's why the psy-oppers in the front lines of the 9/11 cover-up team are terrified by Obama's decision to give KSM a jury trial. They are afraid that visible protests by the 9/11 truth, anti-torture, and Constitution movements, and/or a not-guilty verdict, could deal a mortal blow to their cover-up operation. That is why the decision to try KSM has aroused so much hysterical opposition, for example:


The mayor who oversaw rescue and recovery efforts in the wake of the attacks on lower Manhattan [9/11 criminal and fireman-murderer Rudy Giuliani, who admitted he was told in advance that the Towers would come down, then lied about it] told "Fox News Sunday" the president is only granting the "wish" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad at the expense of the American people and that the conspirators should be tried in a military tribunal.

9/11 perp-in-chief Cheney's daughter is also whimpering hysterically at the prospect of a KSM trial, presumably at the thought of dear old dad's possible execution.

Those who want to see KSM convicted without visible protest, and the official 9/11 big lie sanctified for the history books, are trying to terrorize the 9/11 truth movement into shutting up.  The best-known 9/11 coverup propaganda website is, as usual, trying to scare truthers away from taking effective action, playing on fears and insecurities among those truthers who are hypersensitive about the verbal attacks they endure...but it's the coverup artists' own fear that shines through these lines:

I just hope the troofers finally put there money where their mouth is. I want to see a free KSM movement, just as powerful as the free Mumia nuts. If they really believe what they say they believe, they have no excuse not to do something. Perhaps Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin can appear as expert witnesses or something?

The traitor doth protest too much! Anybody with the faintest understanding of psychology can see that these lines are intended to PREVENT truth-seekers from supporting KSM's obvious and demonstrable innocence, by ridiculing the idea in a manner designed to play on truther insecurities and foster inaction. Anybody who thinks that this anti-truth propagandist really wants us to join Constitutionalists and anti-torture activists in a free KSM movement, and thus impede the sanctifying of the 9/11 big lie in the history books, is of questionable intentions and/or intelligence.

Interestingly, Jon Gold, who moved in on the family members shortly after 9/11, insulated them from such glaringly obvious truths as the controlled demolition of the WTC, fought long and hard against the controlled demolition evidence and other evidence proving that Muslims didn't do 9/11, and has been working overtime ever since to preserve the "evil Muslim terrorists" myth and obscure Zionist responsibility for 9/11, using such cointepro-style tactics as provoking flame wars and issuing vicious personal attacks, is now working overtime to stop the truth movement from joining the Constitutionalists and anti-torture activists in KSM's defense. Take a look at the email exchange below and draw your own conclusions.



Dave Slesinger writes to a list of 9/11 truth-seekers proposing leaflets citing evidence against the official story but saying we don't really know whether KSM is innocent or guilty. Subject header: Re: Draft proposal for presence in NYC for KSM trial
I respond:

Kevin Barrett:

Personally I think this is too weak a response to an outrage this extreme.

If someone is tortured into a demonstrably bogus confession, that person may safely be assumed to be innocent. And if the torturers then destroy the recordings of the torture sessions, the assumption should be upgraded to accepted fact.  That is essentially what Bob Baer says, only slightly between the lines:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1692518,00.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/031107Baer.htm

Here's my response, which is proportionate to the outrage.

In any case, the proposed leaflet should focus on the abundant evidence that KSM is innocent. The question of who is really guilty should be secondary. In other words, the nanothermite evidence should be cited primarily to clear KSM.  Remember, there is a  real chance that a jury will find KSM not guilty. If leaflets citing evidence of his innocence were distributed in mass quantities targeting the prospective jury pool, the likelihood of acquittal would rise -- and any response by the government would trigger useful publicity.

Saying "we're not sure KSM wasn't involved" is exactly like saying "we're not sure David Slesinger wasn't involved." The main difference is that the torture, along with other evidence, clears KSM, whereas no equally strong evidence has yet surfaced that clears Dave  ; )

Kevin

[Various emailers joke about "yeah, we should definitely torture Dave" and "I've had my suspicions about Dave for a long time" etc. etc.  Others support the position that we should defend KSM's innocence.]



Jon Gold:

We need a real criminal investigation into 9/11. I am not defending KSM, nor do I think people in the 9/11 Truth Movement should.

Jon

[emailer disagrees with Jon, who responds:]

We must NOT come across as "terrorist sympathizers." There are MANY in the 9/11 Truth Movement who would like us to do just that. That would be a PR DISASTER. My approach recognizes that 9/11 was a crime, and that there are MORE suspects than just the 5 being brought to NYC.

Here is the available evidence I know of against KSM.

http://home.comcast.net/~gold9472/d20080211chargesheet.pdf

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/csrt_ksm.pdf

The "debunkers" are calling for us to do it.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/11/ksm-4-others-coming-to-new-york-for.html

It is important to note that KSM allegedly confessed to the crime before he was captured.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=4400#a0402foudainterview

KSM IS a "terrorist."  Project Bojinka ring a bell to anyone?  It would be absolutely foolish for us to give our opponents ammunition to call us "terrorist sympathizers."  I am not a "terrorist sympathizer."  I would hate to be painted with a "terrorist sympathizer" brush because certain people are sympathizing with terrorists.

Jon


Kevin Barrett:

That's "evidence" against KSM?!  The guy they made a human vegetable through nonstop torture, then destroyed the interrogation tapes?! Please.

And "terrorist sympathizers"?! As my book Questioning the War on Terror explains and documents, even if we consider 9/11 a "terrorist attack," you are thirty times more likely to be struck by lightning, and ten times more likely to drown in your bathtub, than to be killed by an anti-government "terrorist." So "terrorism" in the sense of al-Qaeda, the Weathermen, the Puerto Rican freedom fighters, etc. is a complete non-issue. We need to ruthlessly mock the whole idiotic "fear the terrorists" meme -- not worry about being called a "terrorist sympathizer"!  Most of the people labeled terrorists, in fact, are heroes fighting against extreme injustice and government terrorism. We SHOULD sympathize with freedom-fighters fighting war criminals in Afghanstan, Iraq, and Palestine. If you don't, Jon, what the hell kind of human being are you?

Governments and their militaries, for their part, murdered roughly 100 million people during the 20th century, most of them civilians. They're the only terrorists that matter.

So I agree that we must not come across as "terrorist sympathizers" by showing any sympathy whatsoever with the US government, the biggest terrorist organization on earth.

And from a PR standpoint, it would be great to have Dave Slesinger carrying a huge sign reading "Torture me, I'll confess too!" in front of the courthouse where KSM is being tried, with hundreds of supporters with similar signs behind him.  A large, visible movement supporting KSM's obvious innocence would help annihilate the "we're all terrorist-hating patriots here" consensus hallucination the Zionist MSM and Jon want to impose on us.

Kevin


Jon Gold:

Kevin Barrett is not someone that should be taken seriously or trusted.  He obviously has an agenda which is not in the best interests of this cause.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21271

Jon

P.S. I live in a world of reality.  I do not proclaim everything to be fake because it doesn't coincide with what I think happened on 9/11.  As I mentioned KSM allegedly confessed BEFORE being tortured.  I also pointed out that the 9/11 Commission was HEAVILY based on his tortured confessions.  An indication that the 9/11 Report isn't worth the paper it was written on.

* *  *

Okay, that's enough of Jon Gold. I'll spare you Jon's illiterate obscene grunts sent to me off-list, which I am used to by now. If I had a dollar for every four-letter-word Jon has emailed me since he started stalking me a few years ago...well, I wouldn't exactly be a rich man, considering the fall of the dollar, but I could at least buy everybody a cup of coffee!

Anyway, does Jon really believe "The 'debunkers' are calling for us" to defend KSM's innocence? Or is he working with those very "debunkers" to spread fear in the truth movement and PREVENT us from taking action? Feel free to post a comment voting either "yes he's stupid enough to believe it" or "no, he's working for the other side."

I'll let Sander Hicks, a brilliant yet cautious and meticulous researcher, have the last word.


Sander Hicks:

Jon Gold, you are wrong. Neo-Zionist ideology = ONE BIG ZERO.

Why are you trying to instill a fear in us?

Sorry, let them called me a "terrorist sympathizer." I have already been called worse. KSM deserves a legal defense. I hold that we activists of good faith need to assemble an "Amicus Brief" and file it through an attorney.

Kevin Barrett has more substance to his argument, on the basis of legal jurisprudence, common sense, morality, ethics, due process of law, standards of evidence, etc.

The USA's eagerness to violate international laws against evidence garnered under torture itself shows desperation. International legal scholars point out that the confession from torture is inadmissable: http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/2/349

It violates the UN Convention Against Torture, see Article 15
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Yet, let's not place any hope in the NY Courts, we saw how quickly they dispatched 80,000 signatures from NYC CAN.

YES there IS a strange allegation that KSM "confessed" before his apprehension in Pakistan.

However, this "confession" was witnessed by only one source, the writer Yosri Fouda. His connections to the establishment media (and possible intelligence assocations) destroy Fouda's credibility. His book "Masterminds of Terror" is a lightweight flake of chaff. KSM says in an off hand way "yes we did it" at the end of a chapter. It's rather unclear: We did WHAT?

Look at Fouda on the History Commons timeline:

Financial Times states: “Analysts cited the crude editing of [Fouda’s interview] tapes and the timing of the broadcasts as reasons to be suspicious about their authenticity. Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, said: ‘I have very serious doubts [about the authenticity of this tape]. It could have been a script written by the FBI.’” [Financial Times, 9/11/2002] ... After being so reviled by al-Qaeda supporters, Fouda is later given a cassette said to be a bin Laden speech. [MSNBC, 11/18/2002] US officials believe the voice on that cassette is “almost certainly” bin Laden, but one of the world’s leading voice-recognition institutes said it is 95 percent certain the tape is a forgery. [BBC, 11/18/2002; BBC, 11/29/2002]

Thursday, November 19, 2009

CIA torturers & nanothermite perps should be tried, convicted, and executed


Obama should call for the execution of the true 9/11 perps--not torture victim KSM

Obama says Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, who allegedly confessed under torture to masterminding 9/11 (as well as many other crimes he could not possibly have committed) will be tried, convicted, and executed.

If the President of the United States has abolished the presumption of innocence -- the bedrock on which our system of justice rests -- then he is the one who should be tried, convicted, and executed.

If the President of the United States has retroactively legitimized the denial of habeus corpus rights to a criminal suspect (and one who happens to be demonstrably innocent) then he is the one who should be tried, convicted, and executed.

If the President of the United States has retroactively legitimized torture, then he (and the rest of the political class guilty of legitimizing torture) should be tried, convicted, and executed.

If the President has approved the CIA's destruction of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed torture tapes -- which would undoubtedly show the torturers forcing Mohammed to falsely take the blame for the 9/11 inside job, as former key CIA operative Robert Baer suggests --  than he should be tried, convicted, and executed.

All of these crimes against the Constitution of the United States of America are immeasurably more heinous than the crimes of which Khaled Sheikh Mohammed has been so preposterously accused. Blowing up three World Trade Center buildings with high-tech nanothermite explosives is a terrible crime -- but blowing up the Constitution of the United States of America is immeasurably worse.

But it isn't just the President, a mere puppet of the deep state, who should be brought to justice.

It is the CIA operatives who tortured Khaled Sheikh Mohammed into giving a demonstrably false confession to 9/11 and other crimes, including crimes committed while he was incarcerated, who should be tried, convicted, and executed.

It is the intelligence operatives, be they CIA, Mossad, or both, who blew up the World Trade Center with high-tech nanothermite explosives, then engineered a follow-up anthrax attack, who should be tried, convicted, and executed.

It is the rogue network operatives who lied us into war -- including folks like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rove, Libby, Bush, and many more -- who should be tried, convicted, and executed.

I oppose capital punishment in principle. But the 9/11 coup d'etat against the Constitution, and the criminal wars of aggression that followed, taken together, are the worst crime ever committed on earth. Yes, Stalin and Hitler (not to mention Churchill and Roosevelt) murdered more people. But the Russian and German states they inherited were not all that great to begin with. Stalin and Hitler simply made bad situations worse.

The USA was once an anti-imperialist democratic republic -- an imperfect one to be sure, but one with a Constitution that guaranteed basic rights, a tradition of avoiding foreign wars and entanglements, and a political system that did not completely overlook the interests of its ordinary citizens. The 9/11 coup d'etat, and the criminal wars of aggression that followed, murdered that America.

Those murderers, unlike the lesser murderers who have disgraced this planet since time immemorial, ought to be tried, convicted, and--yes--executed.

* * *


From the "it only hurts when I laugh" department:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Confesses To Confessing Under Torture

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Confesses: I Killed Jesus!

American Muslims To Fort Hood Shooter: 'Thanks A Lot, Asshole'



Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Warning! We're in the false-flag red zone for 911-2B

Here is the warning I just sent to my list:

Greetings,

As "9/11 conspiracy theorists" go I'm not much of an alarmist, but I do think that we are in the red zone right now for another potential 9/11 style false-flag event. Here's why.

Israel and its allegedly American cheerleaders are desperate to attack Iran ASAP, while Pentagon hawks are yearning to escalate the war in Afghanistan. In other words, the folks who brought us 9/11 and the 9/11 wars want a momentous escalation of those wars. And they want it NOW.

But the American people aren't on board. Polls show that the war on Afghanistan is more unpopular than ever. And the level of destruction unleashed by a Zio-American attack on Iran would make our current economic chaos look like the Golden Age.

To get people to accept this kind of massive escalation, another major false-flag event demonizing Muslims, and thereby legitimizing escalations against the Taliban and the Islamic Republic of Iran, may be in the works.

The Ft. Hood probable false-flag attack (see Jerry Mazza's article) seems to have been timed to coincide with the decision to try (the individual claimed to be) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 patsy-in-chief. All of this appears to have been orchestrated to evoke memories of 9/11 and reinforce the official story--a necessary preliminary to any 911-2B.  In other words, they may be softening us up for something big.

Remember folks, what we're dealing with here is a war on Islam and Muslims launched and sustained by a whole series of false-flag events, not just 9/11-anthrax but also the attacks on Bali, Madrid, London, Mumbai, and now (apparently) Ft. Hood. There is no reason to think these people are going to stop any time soon.

Please consider getting proactive by stockpiling "Inside Job" plastic roll banner signs, to be publicly deployed in the event of a major false-flag event.  I still have a couple of rolls of these, so please email me if you want some.  Also, don't forget that you can get ten copies of my book Questioning the War on Terror for only $50 to pass around.

Thanks for listening, and keep up your efforts for truth and justice.

Kevin

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Nauseating Ft. Hood Wimpery on "Arab-American" Radio Show Almost Blows My Gasket...

...and nearly nets me a speeding ticket!

I was listening to the local Arab-American show "Salamat" on WORT a few hours ago while driving. Bad idea.

The hosts spent about ten minutes falling all over themselves piously and ultra-apologetically parroting the official story of the Ft. Hood shootings, endorsing the official story of 9/11 in the process. They even claimed that Nidal Hasan "killed innocent civilians." They wanted everyone to believe that Arab-Americans are just as patriotic as the next American war criminal.

My wife and I couldn't take it. We started ranting about the pathetic, cowardly lies being broadcast over an allegedly Arab-American radio show on an allegedly alternative radio station in this town of lying war criminals, in this nation of lying war criminals.

Suddenly a stroboscopic cherry-top exploded in my rear-view mirror. I pulled over, cursing my idiocy in letting pathetic, cowardly lies on the radio boil my blood and net me a speeding ticket.

I wanted to explain the whole thing to the officer, about how 9/11 was an inside job, and the 9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not only genocidal, but actually worse than genocidal, because they're wars of aggression, which is the worst crime a human being, or a nation, can commit.

"Do you have any idea why I pulled you over?" the cop asked politely. I said yes, I was driving too fast. But instead of explaining why, I just said we were heading for a Laos-Thai restaurant to celebrate my son's 15th birthday.

After running my license, he let me go with a warning, which was decent of him, since I had been going 50 in a 30 zone.

This cop, unlike the one that shot Jim Duensing, seemed like a nice guy. I suppose some of the war criminals who got shot at Ft. Hood were nice people too. Heck, even the US soldiers in Iraq who sodomized kids in front of their parents to torture the parents might have been nice people if they hadn't been conned by the 9/11 publicity stunt into giving up their humanity. It's really sad how so many decent folks in this country have been turned into war criminals, and enablers of war crimes, by the lying psychopaths who staged the 9/11 inside job, the bombings in Bali, Madrid, London, and Mumbai, and the false-flag friendly fire at Ft. Hood, among so many other crimes.

I'm going to contact the hosts of the Salamat radio show and tell them that their on-air lies are a traffic safety hazard, and that they need to check out these links ASAP:

Major Hasan of Ft. Hood: A Patsy in a Drill Gone Live? by Webster G. Tarpley


Fort Hood Shooting 'Oddities'
By Lori Price, www.legitgov.org Updated: 15 Nov 2009


* * *



Thursday, November 12, 2009

I finally catch the flu conspiracy bug


Many readers and listeners have asked why I'm not banging the drums about the alleged Bilderberg-NWO conspiracy to kill billions of us off using bio-engineered flu, deadly vaccines, or some combination thereof.

The answer: I'm congenitally immune to gloom-and-doom fearmongering. Tell me that the Bilderbergers are planning to kill us off by the billions, and you'd better have some serious evidence behind you, otherwise I'll find something slightly less outlandish, or at least better-substantiated, to worry about. (The 9/11 inside job, and the Zionist takeover of the former USA, will do. Tune in to my radio show this Saturday for that.)

Despite my heightened immunity, after 30 minutes of intimate video contact with a brilliant and lovely M.D. nun (dig that hijab!) named Teresa Forcades, I'm afraid I've finally caught the flu conspiracy bug. Sticking to mainstream sources and avoiding speculation, Ms. Forcades raises some stunning questions:

Why did the pharmaceutical giant Baxter manufacture large quantities of lethal "flu vaccines" that were discovered only by a freak accident?
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/02/27/8560781.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14709

Why would these "vaccines" contain a 100% lethal (in lab animals) mixture of non-attenuated bird flu (60% mortality in humans) along with non-attenuated A strain?

Had these "vaccines" been used as apparently intended, and injected into tens or hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of people, what would have been the result?

Why hasn't the mainstream media jumped all over this?

Why did the WHO change its definition of "pandemic" this year so this year's H1N1 flu, which is less lethal than the average year's flu, could become a source of panic (and billions of vaccines)?

Why have they pushed through new laws this year giving both governments and pharmaceutical corporations immunity from lawsuits based on vaccine side-effects?

Why has there been a global push for mandatory H1N1 vaccinations (taken up with a vengeance by Massachussetts legislators) even though this year's H1N1 flu is one of the least lethal flus ever?

In short, what is this non-event "pandemic" really about? What the hell is going on?

Don't vaccinate me bro, I'm just trying to ask a few questions!

Monday, November 9, 2009

"Ft. Hood - 9/11 link" echoes DHS attempt to set up Muslim 9/11 truth activist

The recent FBI attempt to link Ft. Hood patsy Nidal Hasan to 9/11 has elicited plenty of eyeball-rolling among Americans accustomed to extreme government duplicity and mendacity. But so far nobody has noticed that the alleged Nidal Hasan - 9/11 link echoes an attempt just over a month earlier to frame a leading Muslim 9/11 truth activist as a "terrorist sympathizer."

The Washington Post informs us:

"Hasan attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church in 2001, when its spiritual leader was Anwar al-Aulaqi, a figure who crossed paths with al-Qaeda associates, including two Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers, one senior U.S. official said."

This isn't the first government effort to frame an antiwar Muslim by suggesting an association with the "pro-terrorist" Al-Aulaki. On September 24th, Muslim Marine-vet 9/11 truth activist Muhammed Abdullah was raided by an apparently DHS-coordinated team of over 10 government agents on a transparently bogus pretext. According to Abdullah, the agents repeatedly asked him about whether he might commit a terrorist act, and what he thought about Al-Aulaki. Abdullah says he felt the agents were trying to set him up.

The raid on Abdullah shows that the authorities were targeting antiwar and 9/11 truth activities of a Muslim veteran, and trying to smear that veteran by linking him to Al-Aulaki, more than a month before the shootings at Ft. Hood.

Was the Ft. Hood incident a psychological operation designed to discredit a group that the government fears -- Muslims who oppose the war and support 9/11 truth? Was it also intended to have a pro-war effect on public opinion, by portraying war resisters as "radical Muslim mass killers"?

Muslims and others are already questioning the highly-improbable official version of the Ft. Hood incident. The way the Ft. Hood "Al-Aulaki 9/11 connection" echoes an earlier attempt to frame  9/11 truth activist Muhammed Abdullah adds to those suspicions.

* * *

Shaykh Anwar Al-Aulaki, demonized by the 9/11 perps for defending the right of Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan to defend themselves against criminal wars of aggression...and for telling the truth about 9/11. "Al-Awlaki and his followers blamed Israel for the 9/11 attacks. 'There is an expectation that Muslims should apologize for something that they never did,' al-Awlaki told National Geographic magazine in September 2001."