If you like this blog

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

Friday, December 30, 2011

If Herb Caen, I can too

Back when newspapers were worth reading...and I'm outing myself as a real old-timer by admitting I can remember that far back...the San Francisco Chronicle featured a columnist named Herb Caen...who put three dots between everything he wrote...and just about everything else he wrote...

Herb earned his keep by emitting a steady stream of witty little blurt-outs and brain-farts. Few rivaled the epigrams of LaRochefoucauld.  But at least Herb kept them coming, day after day, week after week, year after year. The guy was a maestro of three-dot journalism...a nattering nabob of non-sequitur...a supreme potentate of suspension points...an elevated eminence of elegant elipsis...

Anyway, with my four advanced degrees in literature, I figure that if Herb Caen, I can too. After all, stringing together bits of gossip and opinion, peppered with all the incisive wit you can find in the cupboard, can't be all that hard...caen it?

Item: Heard over intercom in North Tower of World Trade Center: "Larry Silverstein, please report to the 64th floor. Your necktie has been found and is waiting for you at the front desk." ...

Item: Uri Averny says Israel deserves credit for the success of Islamic movements in the Middle East. Uri writes that Israel virtually created Hamas and Hezbullah...and that the Zionists, with their obtuse bellicosity, are largely responsible for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Right on, Zionists! Israel's contribution to the Islamic resurgence is the greatest thing about Israel...in fact, it's the only good thing about Israel... Memo to Uri, and Israel: They plot, and Allah plots; and Allah is the best of plotters...

Item: Eric Sayward of We Are Change Wisconsin is offering free web hosting for anyone who buys the domain name of a mainstream politician in order to ridicule that politician...kind of like Eric did with RonKind.com...though if the politician you want to ridicule was smart enough to buy his own .com domain name (unlike Ron Kind!) Eric will accept .org, .net, .us, etc. ...

Item: Pilots for 9/11 Truth says they've got slam-dunk proof that two of the planes blamed for the 9/11 attacks were still flying around, far from their alleged crash sites, long after they had supposedly crashed...for details, catch Russ Wittenberg on Truth Jihad Radio on Wednesday, January 4th, 3 pm Central...

Item: Communication Studies professor Jared Ball says Clint Eastwood's new flick on J. Edgar Hoover is a transvestite...I mean, a travesty...after all, Hoover was a monstrous crook and pathological racist - one of the sickest and most destructive people ever to hold power in this country, which is saying a lot... So what's next, a film celebrating and rehabilitating Hitler? No, Mel Brooks already did that...maybe Eastwood's movie should have been titled "Springtime for Hoover..."  Professor Ball and I will vent our spleens on Truth Jihad Radio Friday, January 13th, 4 to 5 pm Central...

Item: The celebrated 9/11 truth group Humorless Idiots for Truth (HIT) has put out another HIT piece on Kevin Barrett. According to HIT, Barrett stands convicted of gallows humor (see above remarks about Larry Silverstein) and is hereby sentenced to be hanged by the neck until dead serious...the designated executioners shall be Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, and that genius 9/11 truther from the Bay Area who's even more brilliant than Chomsky...what's his name? No, not "Cosmos," I mean the other co-founder of HIT, that janitor manqué...Brian what's-his-name...

Item: Willie R. to Brian G. :  "I know I'm cute, but if you don't return to heterosexual stalking and get off my ***, I'm going to sue YOUR *** and the *** of any group that supports your ***."

Hey, lighten up, Willie! Just because you're the handsomest, smartest, most articulate, and by far the most historically significant janitor in the history of the whole bleeping planet, doesn't mean you have to keep beating up on the most pathetic loser ever to FAIL as a janitor...just because he spends his whole life stalking you from his parents' basement, except when he crawls out to volunteer for 9/11 truth groups dumb enough to let him through the door, doesn't mean you have to protect yourself and your reputation. Does it?

Item: Barrett resigns as gossip columnist, flees town ahead of lynch mob.

Monday, December 26, 2011

Jonathan Kay and I agree: "Conspiracy theories" are getting out of hand!

Jonathan Kay is the author of Among the Truthers, an anti-9/11-truth rant that devotes more vitriolic attention to me than to any other 9/11 truth movement figure, and libels me outrageously in the process.

So you wouldn't think that Jonathan and I would ever see eye-to-eye. But it turns out that we agree on a very important point: The "Islamic terror threat" has been grossly exaggerated. Amazingly enough, we  also agree that "conspiracy theories" are getting out of hand!

Here is Jonathan Kay's response to my recent open letter trying to find common ground.

I would agree that Americans, and everyone else, overestimate the threat (to them personally) from terrorism — just as they overestimate the threat from airplane crashes, gun crime, and other forms of violent death (while underestimating the threat from, say, eating salty food or being overweight). I think they also overestimate the radicalism of American Muslims. I went to a hyper-conervative “anti Shariah” conference in Nashville a few months ago, and was shocked by how freaked out these people were. They seemed to think that an Islamist theocracy was about to take over Washington any day. I think that people in that kind of phobic, agitated state also fall into the category of people who can’t be argued with. It’s a phenomenon I see on both sides of the political spectrum — the radical, Islamophobic right, and the radical, anti-Zionist left.

I responded:


Thank you for this sensible comment.  I agree completely (and urge you to write some hard-hitting pieces along these lines) though of course I would disagree with you about which anti-Zionists are reasonable and which are not.  I see most as reasonable, and most pro-Zionists as unreasonable, while you would presumably disagree - which is natural, since we disagree about whether Zionism is a reasonable enterprise.

Your critique of paranoia and scapegoating is not without merit. But what you're missing is that the biggest source of the problem is that many of the "conspiracy theories" you denigrate are true, or at least defensible based on the available evidence. "Conspiracy paranoia" is the natural result of a lack of transparency, not merely people's vivid imaginations. 

I'm sure you will agree that the empirical evidence supports the truth of Smedley Butler's story about a near coup d'état during the FDR era. Yet none of the coup plotters was prosecuted. Congress swept high treason under the rug.

Was the coup plotters' impunity a fluke? Or do powerful criminals often, usually, or nearly always evade prosecution for their crimes? The rate of unsolved cases in ordinary crimes is very high - 90%-plus - which is actually understated, since the police are usually happy to "solve" crimes by making whatever case can be made, regardless of the innocence or guilt of their target.  Errol Morris's film The Thin Blue Line makes this point beautifully; and the Monfils murder case here in Wisconsin is another classic illusration.

So when you admit that some conspiracies are real, but cite only "solved" cases, you are making an unreasonable inference: That crime is always punished, and treason never prospers. I suggest to you that the kind of people who gravitate to power are the kind of people who have little or no compunction about committing crimes that they believe they can get away with; and that their belief that they can get away with almost anything, especially "big lie" crimes so great that ordinary people can't imagine them, is generally accurate. When powerful people set up a complex crime, complete with a well-prepared cover story and a patsy to take the blame, the odds of their being caught drop to just about zero...even when they leave smoking-gun evidence, as they did with WTC-7 on 9/11.

Therefore, whenever a crime is committed from which powerful people or groups clearly benefit, we may assume that, regardless of what happens or doesn't happen in the courts, the newspapers, or the history books, the chances are fairly good that one or more of those people or groups authored the crime and got away with it. This harsh reality may be disheartening to those who worship at the altar of power - i.e. those who have not yet deprogrammed themselves from the primate instinct to kiss the purple rear ends of the alpha males. But it is also liberating, as the truth always is.

Unfortunately, it seems to me (and here I'm sure you will agree) that popular rumors of high crimes including the murders of JFK, RFK, FDR, MLK, JFK Jr., etc., coups d'état including Smedley's Coup, Bush's "October Surprise" in 1980, Bush's election theft in 2000, 9/11, false-flag attacks including the Gulf of Tonkin, Oklahoma City, the first World Trade Center bombing etc., and massive coverups of these crimes as well as other subjects including mind-control experiments, UFO allegations, child prostitution rings servicing the elite, wholesale computerized election fraud, banksters plotting a New World Order dictatorship, geoengineering through chemtrails, vaccine shenanigans and so on are getting out of control.

Your solution is to argue (without evidence) that none of these claims are true, and to ridicule your opposition. In the internet era, that won't work. Too much evidence pointing in the opposite direction is too easily available.

Cass Sunstein, who like us worries about the spread of "conspiracy theories," ups the ante. He argues that it may one day be necessary to outlaw conspiracy theories; but that in the meantime, the government should "disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories" and "cognitively infiltrate" conspiracy movements. For some reason, purveyors of conspiracy theories, including myself, have not been calmed and reassured by Sunstein's arguments against conspiracy theories. On the contrary, they have fueled our paranoia - undoubtedly because we are too perverse to grasp Sunstein's benevolent intentions.

So here is my solution: American glasnost. We should start from the assumption that for the powerful, crime usually does pay, and that a great many unacknowledged yet massive crimes and Big Lies undoubtedly clutter and degrade our history. Then, perhaps using a Truth and Reconciliation approach, we should make an all-out effort to get to the truth of all of the above claims as well as any other alleged "crimes and big lies of the powerful" that may come to our attention. Once the record has been corrected, and a more truthful history established, we should make an all-out effort to design institutions that will prevent or at least limit such abuses in the future.

I stand ready to serve as Commissioner of Conspiracies should such an attempt at glasnost ever take shape. And I would certainly consider appointing you Devil's Advocate or Anti-Conspiracy Czar should my duties include the delegation of such authority to someone congenitally incapable of believing that high crimes of the powerful ever escape prosecution in the courts of law or the pages of history.

Until such a day arrives, I remain

Cordially yours

Kevin Barrett

Friday, December 23, 2011

WHO's paranoid?! My letter to Jonathan Kay of the National Post

Jonathan Kay of the Canadian National Post libeled me outrageously in his book Among the Truthers.
Now Joshua Blakeney informs me that Kay mentioned me in a recent speech to the Hannah Arendt Center

The good news is that this time he doesn't libel me. The bad news is that his speech continues the assault on reason, disguised as a defense of reason, that he began in his book.
Below is my letter briefly responding to the Arendt Center speech.



In your speech to the Arendt Center (I'm a fan of Hannah Arendt by the way) in which you kindly quote me, you write:

 "You can’t have a discussion about anti-terrorist policy or foreign affairs or security with someone who thinks that 9/11 was an inside job. It is just impossible. They live in different realities. You can’t span those realities with rationalism."

Let's try, very briefly.
Consider two facts:

1) The average North American's chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are essentially zero. Lightning, tornadoes, and bathtub drownings are bigger threats. Cigarettes kill a 9/11's worth of Americans every two days. (See my book for details.)

2) According to the FBI, Muslim extremists have committed 6% of the terrorist attacks in the US since 1980 - fewer than Jewish extremists, and vastly fewer than Hispanics.  http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/rand-report-threat-of-jihadist-terrorism-exaggerated/

Therefore, whether 9/11 was a freak occurrence (your position) or an Islamophobic hate crime like the anthrax mailings (my position), we should be able to agree that the "war on terror" is a hoax, that there is no discernible statistically significant terrorist threat from anyone, and that the "Islam - terrorism" meme that dominates the mainstream media has about the same basis in reality as the "Jews - blood-drinking" meme of the extreme anti-Semites.

Jon, if you live in a "reality" where Islamic terrorism is a major threat to North Americans, and where this "fact" should affect US/Canadian foreign or domestic policy, you and I do live in different worlds. We can easily figure out whose reality is real, and whose isn't, by looking at statistics and doing some elementary calculations. If I have gotten my facts wrong, please correct me.

By the way, I do agree with you that some of the "conspiracy theorists" you discuss are irrational, paranoid, and prone to scapegoating this or that group. But few are as paranoid as you, and the rest of the mainstream media, in your manufacturing the phantasmagoric "Islamic terrorist threat."



Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Islam and liberty: Contradictory or complementary?

In his classic On Liberty, John Stuart Mill observes: "Wherever the (religious) sentiment of the majority is still genuine and intense, it is found to have abated little of its claim to be obeyed."*

More than 150 years later, Mill's dictum holds true. In irreligious Europe, as in the great coastal metropolitan centers of the USA, there is little legal or social pressure to obey religious dictates; whereas in the Islamic world, and parts of the American heartland, where deeply religious majorities exist, religious opinion demands obeisance on important matters.

Is religion, then, an impediment to liberty? Can liberty flower in societies of fervent religiosity? Is the so-called Arab Spring, whose twin banners are Liberty and Islam, doomed to collapse under the burden of a contradiction?

To begin to address this question, we must revisit Mill's argument. The basic problem that On Liberty addresses is not despotism, but the rise of democracy. Mill correctly points out that under traditional despotisms, the population views the government as a powerful Other if not an outright enemy. The despot is tolerated because his power allows him to occasionally suppress pettier despots, thereby maintaining a modicum of social order and a degree of justice for the many. Under such conditions, custom and practice if not law limit the range of situations into which the government may stick its nose. The result is a fair amount of de facto liberty.

Democracy, according to Mill, threatens to actually reduce liberty. Why? Because once the people feel the government is an expression of their own will, rather than the will of some distant despot, they are tempted to use it to enforce their own preferences and opinions on other people, whose liberty is thereby violated. One cannot imagine a traditional despot of yore, for example, ordering an ordinary citizen to mow his or her lawn to a certain length. Yet in today's USA, stories of the judicial enforcement of "law'n order" abound. Indeed, American zoning codes probably restrict people's freedom to do what they like with their property far more than any king, nobleman, emperor, caliph, or other potentate ever did in the pre-Enlightenment era.

Keeping this in mind, we see that the central contradiction of the Arab Spring is not "Islam vs. liberty" or "Islam vs. democracy," but rather the same dilemma Mill addressed: democracy versus liberty. This dilemma, however, is not widely recognized. The people of the Middle East, like people everywhere, have been conditioned by the propaganda apparatus of modernity to imagine that liberty and democracy are the same thing, or at least that they go together.

Muhammad Bouazizi, the Tunisian street vendor whose self-immolation set off the chain of Arab revolutionary dominoes, was not frustrated simply by the fact that he lived under a dictatorship. He was frustrated that the government bureaucracy made it difficult for him, through permit requirements, red tape, and harassment, to sell his wares freely on the street. But if Arab street vendors imagine that American-style democracy will solve that problem - well, I invite them to come try and make a living selling things on the streets of Madison, Wisconsin. The traditional Islamic concept of the "free and open market" - nobody "owns" retail real estate, and anybody is free to show up and sell anything anywhere, first-come first-served - represents a kind of extreme liberty that contrasts sharply with the tyranny of the propertied classes, and their brainwashed "majority," that reigns under so-called American democracy. Indeed, traditional Islamic markets are paradises of freedom compared to the muzak-infested air-conditioned inferno of most of the American retail sector.

Sartre's line "l'enfer, c'est les autres" (hell is other people) sums up the root of the problem: It is other people who encroach on our liberty, other people who are the bars of our cage. Empowering "the people" through democracy just puts more bars on the cage, and makes those bars that much more unbreakable, absent a socially-agreed-upon insistence on some modicum of liberty. Mill's polemic for liberty is a necessary response to the tyranny of democracy.

It might also be a necessary response to the kinds of tyrannies that have governed the Middle East since the fall of the Ottomans. These tyrannies are basically European colonial bureaucracies on steroids, made even more monstrous by unchecked despotism. The government's intrusion into every nook and corner of life, which developed in relatively democratic Euro-America and frightened John Stuart Mill, became as monstrous under neo-colonialism as it did under communism and fascism. Take Ben Ali's Tunisia - please!

So how does Islam fit into this picture? Traditionally, Islam restricted and guided the behavior of both rulers and ruled. The ruler was expected to uphold God's law, behave justly and generously, and seek counsel from the people (or at least the wisest among them). The ruled were also supposed to follow God's law as best they could: Pray five times a day, fast during Ramadan, give alms and pay the annual tax on wealth AND income, attend Friday services, conduct business with complete honesty and integrity...and (preferably) free slaves, donate surplus wealth to charity, pious endowments and interest-free loans, and so on.

When both rulers and ruled followed Islamic precepts, harmony reigned. People who ritually face and submit to God five times a day are less likely to behave badly than people who don't; and this tenet, and others like it, holds for rulers as well as ruled.

But what about liberty? Under the traditional Islamic system, liberty was both limited and enabled by Islam. It was limited in that serious violations of Islamic law were viewed as threats to the social order, and therefore largely suppressed from the public sphere. (What happened in private, of course, was between the individual and God.)

While restricted by shariah, liberty was in other ways enabled, in that the tyranny of both the ruler AND the people was limited by Islamic precept. Tyrants could not act arbitrarily, because Islamic law set boundaries on the scope of their actions. And ordinary people, those lesser tyrants, were likewise restricted in their encroachments on the liberty of their fellows. Property owners, for example, could not eliminate the free and open Islamic market; slave-owners could not abuse their slaves in certain ways, such as forcing them into prostitution; businessmen could not establish monopolies; would-be usurers could not charge interest; and so on. (Ones "freedom of contract" to be victimized by usury is more than negated by the debt slavery that results.)

The overall result, in many cases at least, was an impressive flowering of relative liberty and equality. With no corporations to limit individual risk, no lending at interest to guarantee bankers' tyranny over the market, and indeed no "wealth insurance" of any kind - alongside a sort of "Islamic potlatch ethic" against piling up wealth - social mobility in the Early and Middle Periods of Islam may have been the highest ever experienced anywhere.** Any slave could realistically hope to be freed, and any poor person could come sell in the free and open market, or set off on trading voyages, and realistically hope to grow rich (and then be obliged to give away most of his wealth or be reviled as a hoarder); while those who did strike it rich had moderately poor prospects for retaining their wealth for very long, given the vagaries of the free market as well as the aforementioned potlatch ethic and absence of wealth insurance. Slaves regularly became wealthy potentates, while wealthy potentates regularly were reduced to impoverishment or even enslavement. (If you don't believe me, check out the history of the Mameluke slave dynasty.)

Whether you see Islamic societies, whether of the past or future, as "high-liberty" or "low liberty" societies depends on which kind of liberties you emphasize. Any Islamic society, excluding imaginary utopian ones, must necessarily lack the absolute religious liberty that has been the hallmark of the post-Enlightenment West. Those who truly believe that all religions are equal obviously care little or nothing for religion; they also may be deficient in their ability to discriminate (in the word's positive sense). Anyone who equates the Catholicism of Mother Theresa, the Protestantism of David Ray Griffin, or the Islam of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi with, say, the Satanism of Anton Szandor LaVey, giving all of these "religions" the same rights and the same value, is obviously suffering from an inability to make crucial distinctions.

Granted that religious minorities would lose legal equality***, it seems to me that whatever liberties would be lost under Islam would be more than made up for by other, more important liberties gained. Our rights to be sexually profligate, sire children out of wedlock, abort millions of unborn children, vaunt our proclivities for unnatural acts, spread venereal diseases, dress provocatively in public, profess Satanism, hoard extreme wealth, monopolize market space, form corporations to absolve ourselves of responsibility, subject ourselves to alcohol poisoning in public places, charge interest on loans, blaspheme established religions, advertise our wares deceptively, and so on might be restricted. But in return we would have much more freedom to buy and sell as responsible individuals in the open market, live in a public sphere unpolluted by excesses of crime and vice, and still do pretty much what we want in private.

After many decades of reflection, I have concluded that the most important freedom is the freedom to flourish spiritually, not just economically or expressively. And to flourish spiritually, our souls need a peaceful and harmonious environment. The post-Enlightenment West, and those societies that imitate it, are incapable of providing such an environment. Today's West is saturated by images of lust, violence, greed, inebriation, and other provocations - images that ought to be arrested for disturbing the spiritual peace, and removed from the public sphere. (John Stuart Mill, who argued that the only valid reason to restrict an individual's liberty was to defend others against harm, might approve, or at least defer judgment of, Muslims' attempts to protect themselves, their religion, their societies and their values from the harms inflicted by Western neo-colonialism, by restricting certain "liberties" in their lands.)

In the end, the real question is not "will the Arab Spring bring freedom and democracy, or will it bring Islamism?" Instead, it is: Will the people of the Middle East restore Islam, and the liberty to spiritually flourish, to their societies? Or will they follow the West into the abyss of materialist pseudo-liberty - whose final destination is a hellhole of Orwellian absolute slavery?

* * *

*Mill, On Liberty, Norton Critical Edition, p. 9

** See Hodgson's The Venture of Islam, v.1 and 2

*** The real test of Islamic rule is: Will sensible, just people from the religious minorities welcome it? If not, then it probably isn't being applied properly.

Friday, December 16, 2011

Biggest anti-Semitic slur of the year: "Palestine is the Holy Land"

Wiesenthal Center names top 10 anti-Semitic slurs
December 13, 2011
NEW YORK (JTA) – A comment by Mahmoud Abbas referring to Palestine as the “holy land” placed first in the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Top 10 Anti-Israel/Anti-Semitic Slurs of 2011.

The Palestinian Authority president made the remark at the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 23.

“I come before you today from the Holy Land, the land of Palestine, the land of divine messages, ascension of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and the birthplace of Jesus Christ peace be upon him, to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people,” he said.

* * *

That's it? That's the biggest, baddest anti-Semitic slur of the year?! Must have been a pretty quiet year for the ADL.

But wait a minute...just what the bleep is anti-Semitic about calling Palestine "the Holy Land" ?

Here is the Wiesenthal Center's complete explanation:

Speaking to the world, Abbas omitted any reference to the Jewish people’s connection to the Holy Land. No reference to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor King David, King Solomon, or Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel.

What "Jewish people's connection to the Holy Land?"  For that matter, what "Jewish people"? Israeli historian Schlomo Sand has demonstrated conclusively that "the Jewish people" is a mythical concept invented during the 19th century by Europeans. Before that, there was a (numerically relatively insignificant) Jewish religion, just like there were Christian and Islamic and Buddhist and Yoruba and other religions. (The numbers of Jews and Yoruba were more or less in the same ballpark - a handful of millions - whereas the numbers of Muslims and Christians numbered then in the hundreds of millions and today in the billions.)

Today, a Zionist sacred myth claims that there is a "Jewish people" with a special connection to the Holy Land, and the right to establish an ethnically-cleansed state there.

But only Zionists believe this myth. Others have other myths. (Note: Myths are sacred stories. To call a story "mythical" is to say that it is sacred, not that it is untrue.)

For Christians, the Holy Land is notable as the home of Jesus. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others are important not in their own right, but as forerunners to Jesus. Therefore the true heirs of Middle Eastern monotheism and its holy places, especially Palestine, are the Christians.

For Muslims, all of the prophets - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the others, culminating in Jesus and Muhammad, peace upon all of them - are equally worthy: "We make no distinction between them" (Qur'an 2:285). Therefore, since Christians err in rejecting Muhammad, and Jews err in rejecting Jesus and Muhammad, the true heirs of Middle Eastern monotheism and its holy places are the Muslims. 

There are about four billion Middle Eastern Monotheists, i.e. spiritual descendants of Abraham, in the world. A little over two billion of them call themselves Christian. A little under two billion call themselves Muslim. Each of these groups sees itself as the rightful heir to Palestine and the rest of the Middle Eastern monotheistic tradition and its holy places.

Fewer than twenty million - that is, less than 1.5% of the total - call themselves Jewish. In other words, Judaism is a tiny, numerically insignificant minority sect within the monotheistic tradition. These are people who understand monotheism in a very peculiar way, a way that hardly anyone agrees with.

If we are to give each believer equal weight, the Holy Land ought to be split between Christians and Muslims, with Jews getting about 1.5% of it.

That, of course, is if we treat Christian, Muslim and Jewish beliefs equally.

But we can't do that. If we do, we'll be accused of anti-Semitism.

Because an anti-Semite is anybody who doesn't believe in the peculiar mythology of that tiny minority of monotheists who call themselves Zionist Jews.

The Zionist Jews are the only monotheists who have the gall, the audacity, the pushiness, the lunatic chutzpah to declare that anyone who doesn't buy into their mythology is a bigot. According to the Wiesenthal Center and other Jewish Supremicist organizations, anyone who holds to a different mythology, or who insists on treating the various mythologies and their adherents equally, must be a Jew-hating nazi.

Talk about self-absorption!

These people need to pull their heads out of their tushes and notice that the world is a whole lot bigger than their own innards.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

In which I turn myself in for Indefinite Military Detention

Sent to:  www.dhs.gov/xutil/contactus.shtm

 Dear DHS,

As someone who could be said to "substantially support al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces," I am writing to turn myself in under the new NDAA law. Please send a US military brigade, preferably the Marines (semper fi, guys!) to indefinitely detain me. (I'd prefer the Marines because I'm a big fan of Gen. Smedley Butler - and I LOVE Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket. I mean, let's face it, compared to the other services, the Marines are seriously cool.)

I suppose you want me to explain what "substantially support" means. Well, I'm wondering about that myself.

If "substantially support" means giving money and weapons, then unfortunately I'm ineligible to be indefinitely detained for life and put up on a military base at the expense of the US taxpayer. Of course, the only reason I haven't given al-Qaeda and the Taliban any money is that they haven't asked. If Bin Laden, who died in December 2001, returned from the grave one more time, dragging his seaweed-covered dialysis machine behind him, and showed up on my doorstep with a begging bowl, I would definitely offer some spare change. And if Mullah Omar ever dropped by for a visit, I would offer him three cups of tea and plenty of sympathy. If he needed a few bucks, well, who am I to refuse charity? He could probably use a clean, shiny new glass eye by now.

If, on the other hand, "substantially support" means to "like" or "cheer for," in the same way I substantially support, say, the Green Bay Packers - who are kicking almost as much ass in the NFL as the Taliban is in Afghanistan - well, then, let me admit that I am a fan of Bin Laden and the Taliban.

The comparison is slightly misleading, because I support the Packers wholeheartedly and unreservedly, whereas I do have some areas of disagreement with Bin Laden and the Taliban. I think Bin Laden's decision to become a lifelong CIA asset was misguided, to say the least. And I think the Taliban have at times behaved inconsiderately to Shi'ites and other non-Pashtuns, women, and gigantic stone statues.

Nonetheless, I think Bin Laden will go down in history as a hero for having the guts to repeatedly insist that he had nothing to do with 9/11. Those statements, which he made throughout September and early October 2001, may have sealed his fate. (Then again, he was an end-stage kidney patient and wouldn't have lived much longer anyway.)*

Additionally, Osama Bin Laden was by all accounts a good, pious man as well as a terrific public speaker. I unreservedly support at least 95% of what he said in the many excellent speeches and public statements he made throughout his tragically curtailed life. (I'm not just talking through my turban here - I was part of a translation team hired by an anthropologist at UW-Madison to translate a bunch of OBL's speeches.)

And as far as supporting the Taliban - well, how could anyone NOT support them? These guys are bravely defending their country from a foreign invasion! Just like we would do here if the Chinese invaded us!

Remember, guys, AGGRESSION (invading somebody else's country) is THE SUPREME WAR CRIME and THE SUPREME CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. It is worse than genocide, worse than torture, worse than gassing people, worse than firebombing cities full of civilians, worse than nuking cities full of civilians. This is not my opinion - it is a fact, i.e. the established position of the profession of international law. Why? Because aggression paves the way to all the other crimes.

The right of people to defend themselves and their land, by any means necessary, against a foreign aggressor, is THE most fundamental human right.

And the Taliban are exercising it brilliantly.

Since I am neither a moron nor a psychopath, I have no choice but to support them.

So please, send those Marines to detain me ASAP.  As they march through my neighborhood ("the battlefield") to my door, it would be wonderful if you could have them singing "Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "Halls of Montezuma." I hope you can spare some bugle-players and drummers for the occasion.

And if possible, I would like to request a cell with a big-screen color TV, so I can watch the Packers and the Taliban keep right on kicking ass.


Dr. Kevin Barrett
Western Wisconsin (you know where)

*The only "evidence" ever put forward to implicate "al-Qaeda" in 9/11 consists of ridiculous forced confessions evoked by massive doses of torture.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Larry "Satan's Slave" Silverstein invests in 666 !

Today's headline reads: World Trade Center developer Silverstein in $666 million deal in Poland.

What's with Silverstein and 666?

Exactly 911 days after 9/11 - on 3/11 (2004), the day of the Madrid bombings - Larry Silverstein bought the biggest building in the 60606 zip code: the "illuminati power center" Sears Tower. On June 6th, 2006 (6/6/6) a planned attack on the Sears Tower may have been thwarted (according to military intel specialist Captain Eric May) due to the widespread warnings, amplified by the publicity surrounding the Chicago conference. That was the world's first huge, successful 9/11 truth conference.

Does Silverstein have an affinity for terrorist-target skyscrapers and the number 666?

The 9/11 truth community knows Silverstein as the guy who inexplicably bought the white-elephant Towers in July 2001, doubled the insurance, and changed it to cash-payout. Two months later he blew up his own buildings, confessed on national television to demolishing Building 7, demanded double-indemnity for the "two completely separate terrorist attacks" (the two planes) and collected many billions in fraudulent insurance payouts, along with rights to rebuild.*

It was a HELL of an investment.

New York City's Port Authority had been desperately trying to find a way to demolish the Trade Towers since around 1990.  The Towers had outmoded infrastructure, and such high vacancy rates that the City was losing a small fortune every year. Worse, all of the structural steel in the building was tightly encased in asbestos-laden spray-on fireproofing; and you can't demolish an asbestos-laden building until every last speck of the stuff has been scraped off.

In early 2001, the Port Authority lost its lawsuit contesting an asbestos-abatement order. Whoever owned the Towers - at this point the Port Authority - was legally required to scrape off and dispose of all of that asbestos. Cost estimates ranged from the billions to the tens of billions.

Fortunately for the city, Larry "Satan's Slave" Silverstein, an alleged mobster said to have gotten his start in the sexual-services trade before graduating to criminal-syndicate real estate, stepped in as a "good samaritan" to help New York City dispose of those toxic, money-hemorrhaging Towers. He put a little over ten million of his own money, with an additional 100 million or so from friends.  Then on 9/11, bingo! Larry hit the jackpot. He, and family members, who were always in the Towers every morning, miraculously stayed home due to dermatological appointments and other excuses. Then he walked off with what is shaping up to be double-digit billions in insurance money, plus rights to the Trade Center site.

They don't call him "Lucky Larry" for nothing.

"Lucky Larry" seems to think his two lucky numbers are 9/11 and the number of the Beast of Revelations, 666.

They've been lucky for you in this life, Larry.

So far.

None of your victims or their sympathizers have caught up with you...yet.

But regardless of how you end up dying,  you're going to have one hell of a time at the final judgment.