If you like this blog

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

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Two new Press TV op-eds

The Takfiri motto: "Off with their heads!"

I just published two Press TV op-eds on successive days:

NSA spy scandal: It’s even worse than Snowden says


How are Takfiris, Zionists alike?

Friday, June 28, 2013

9/11 truth graffiti - Building 7?

Now I'm not urging anyone to do this. Graffiti is illegal.

But misprision of treason - knowing about an act of treason and not reporting it - is even more illegal.

If you spray-paint graffiti like this and get caught, you might have to pay a fine or do some jail time.

But if you fail to spread this message in any way you can, you've committed misprision of treason and could face life imprisonment.

Or - worse - life imprisonment in your own bad conscience, knowing you were too cowardly to do the right thing.

The choice is yours.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

West, Zionists Mortally Threatened by Truth

  Press TV has conducted an interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett, with the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance from Wisconsin, to share his thoughts on the West’s double standards on freedom of speech. The following is an approximate transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Dr. Barrett, you heard our guest there [talking about Intelsat "complying with sanctions against Iran"], your reaction.

Barrett: That was the most vague and nonsensical bunch of gibberish I have heard in a long time and I’ve been up against some pretty goofy people on this show before. “It is not a breach of freedom of speech” (he says) even though what we are talking about here is shutting down a major TV channel because somebody might be worried about being in breach of sanctions or something like this. This is ridiculous!

Let’s face the facts here, the office of asset control of the US Treasury Department was handed over to a bunch of hard-line neoconservative arch Zionist Likudnik radical Israeli partisans and those people have been given carte blanche by the US government for some ungodly reason to go after Iran in an all-out monetary war, and an ideological war. They are trying to shut down Iran’s economy.
They are also trying to shut down the free flow of ideas back and forth between the West and Iran. If they had nothing to fear from the ideas that are coming across on Press TV, al-Alam and the other Iranian channels, this wouldn’t be a problem.

So, it’s a case of egregious hypocrisy; these people endlessly blabber on about free speech and democracy.

Before the Iranian elections, they were claiming that Iran is not really a democracy, that the elections there are always stolen. And guess what, every media outlet that I read in the Western Zionist-controlled press said that there was absolutely no chance that the new president [elect Hassan] Rohani would win because “the hardliners are in absolute dictatorial control of Iran and there are no free elections in Iran,” and all this kind of nonsense.

They were proven wrong. The Reformist candidate was elected and one would think that this would lead to a rethinking of policy towards Iran and a willingness to engage in this exchange of ideas, which is exactly what President Rohani has called for in the debates leading up to the elections. President Rohani was calling for dialog and he was calling for a shift towards soft power.
In other words, he is not interested in militarily threatening anyone. He wants a war of ideas in which the better ideas will prevail. Obviously, the hardline Zionists in the West know very well that if there is a free flow of ideas, they will lose. And that is why they are shutting down the last bastion of free speech in major international networks.

Press TV: What about the laws…, if you want to talk about laws, we have other laws. You have the European Convention on Human rights, you have the US Constitution and you have Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that promotes media freedoms. Dr. Barrett, obviously that is not what the US government, through their office OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control), is going by.

Barrett: Well, of course not, and the reason I think is that the Iranian channels, in particular Press TV but I think al-Alam is doing the same thing in the Arab world, are having a big effect on public opinion. Because the fact is that the media in the West has become less and less free. We have less and less freedom of speech every year here in the West, and there has developed a robust alternative media on the Internet, which tells the truth about many of the most contentious and controversial issues, including the loss of freedom, including the really hardline, sort of red line issues that you are just not allowed to talk about – such as the coup d’état on September 11, 2001 and the domination of power here in the US by hardline pro-Israeli Zionists. These are things that nobody is allowed to talk about in polite company in the West or they will lose their careers, they will be targeted one way or another and in a few cases people even get killed.

So, in the face of this loss of freedom in the West and the reaction to it in the form of the development of alternative media, which is getting out there presenting a wide spectrum of viewpoints including those that are much more accurate than anything mainstream will ever tell you. Those people (in Iran’s international media) have started to get more and more professional. It is quite wonderful that they have a policy to provide better English language information in a high production value format than anything you can find in the West.

This is a threat (to the powers that be). If you try to start something like Press TV here in the US, you will be squashed. The powers that be will find a way to stop you and shut you down – or buy you out, which is what they mostly do. But, then Iran is not for sale, so Press TV is going to keep providing this outlet to American intellectuals and dissidents who are shut out from the mainstream media in the West. And it is going to keep presenting a broader spectrum of opinion (than the mainstream) including these accurate views on extremely controversial issues.

This is a tremendous threat to certain aspects of the powers that be; particularly these hard line Zionists and particularly people who are trying to keep the US throwing billions of dollars in the direction of Israel.

The truth about September 2011 is of course a tremendous weapon in this struggle against the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Press TV has been open to this as have a few other international outlets and the alternative media here in the West.

This is such a threat that they are using their assets to try to shut it down.

Press TV: Dr. Barrett, go ahead [and comment on our other guest’s comments on the West’s point of view on Iranian policies and their reasons for blocking Iranian TV channels - namely, that Iran supposedly wants to "wipe Israel off the map," and that it is building nuclear weapons to do so.]

Barrett: What we have just heard are these Zionist talking points. They are designed to brainwash the lowest common denominator in public opinion. This is the sort of thing they repeat endlessly on the Hannity and O’Reilly shows over at Fox News (a US news network) because they think their audience is stupid enough to believe it.

But, the fact is that Iran is in full compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty – unlike Israel, which is an outlaw rogue nation that has torn up that treaty and burned it and built 400 nuclear weapons, with which it is threatening every capital in the Middle East.

Iran’s official policy, as dictated by its Supreme Leader, is to absolutely under no circumstances ever build a nuclear weapon because that is haram, that is forbidden. And there is not a shred of evidence that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon as the CIA has certified repeatedly just most recently, a year and a half – two years ago.

So, as far as wiping Israel off the map, I am sure Richard [Millet] (the guest in London) knows that he is lying. That that was a quote from the Ayatollah Khomeini that was repeated by the recent ex-President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad and that quote is simply calling for regime change in occupied Jerusalem.

It said that the regime that is occupying Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time, it didn’t say anything about wiping anybody off the map and certainly not militarily. It wasn’t talking about military regime change; it was talking about changing this genocidal regime that is killing and expelling and ethnically cleansing the indigenous people of Palestine, and has been doing so for more than the last half-century.

That regime does need to change just like the apartheid regime in South Africa needed to change.
Everyone in the Middle East agrees with this. Try, Richard, to find me one Middle Easterner outside of the hardline Jews of Israel who doesn’t agree with that quote from Ayatollah Khomeini.
So, there is no wiping off the map, there is no nuclear weapon issue; everybody knows this, these are talking points for idiots.

The real issue is that Iran is using its soft power, like these TV channels, to get the truth out to the people of the West and the Zionists are mortally threatened by the truth and they have to kill the messenger.

Press TV: Dr. Barrett, before this program ends, I would like to get your explanation about why the US right before Iran’s successful, over 70 percent turnout, 11th presidential election had sanctions removed on telecommunications.

What’s interesting is that the US says that people should be able to communicate and access information without being subjected to reprisals by the government and they said to help facilitate the free flow of information in Iran. So, they removed sanctions on that, but then they ban Iranian channels including Press TV. That’s ironic isn’t it?

Barrett: Well it sure is. What they are saying is that we are going to pick up this megaphone and yell in your ear, but we are going to put earplugs in our ears and we are not going to listen to you and we are not going to allow you to speak, and if you try to speak we are going to put a gag over your mouth. That’s what this opening after the election amounts to.

It is really sad because one would have thought that the election of a reformist president, which everyone in the West was saying was completely impossible because Iran wasn’t a democracy – and we know that that is not true; Iran has actually hand counted paper ballots unlike the US. Iran is probably more democratic in terms of its honesty of its elections than the US is – and one would expect that after such an election the West would want to hear what kind of viewpoints are coming out of Iran in order to have a frank dialog and resolve all of these outstanding issues. But, there are forces here in the West that don’t want a dialog. (Those forces are) led by the hardline Likudnik Zionists of Israel, who have a real problem with the ideas that are coming out of Iran and the ideas that are coming out of the rest of the Middle East, but are suppressed by puppet governments. And they just don’t want to allow those ideas to be heard in the West.

Friday, June 14, 2013

Iran: Threat or Menace? Part 3: Why Iran-bashing is obligatory

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei casts the first vote in Iran's elections

Today is presidential election day in Iran. 

So here is the pull quote for today's article:

In Going to Tehran, the Leveretts show that there was not a shred of evidence of significant fraud in the 2009 Iranian elections - as those crying fraud implicitly admitted in their failure to even try to provide the evidence that would have been easily available had widespread fraud actually occurred.

 I wish the USA's "black-box computer-fabricated" presidential elections were as honest as the Iranian ones, which use hand-counted paper ballots.


Iran: Threat or Menace? Part 3: Why Iran-bashing is obligatory 

(Links to part 1 and part 2 and listen to my interview with Flynt Leverett at http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-031513.mp3 )

If you want to publish an English-language article, book, or research paper about Iran, don't even think about noticing any of the positive accomplishments of the 1979 Islamic revolution. If you do, you may never work in this town again.

Even the good books in English about Iran - with very few exceptions - have a strong anti-Islamic-revolution bias.

Going to Tehran by Flynt and Hillary Leverett

The most notable exception is Going to Tehran by Flynt and Hillary Leverett. The Leverett's book corrects most of the major misconceptions about Iran in great detail and with convincing documentation.

The good news is that the Leveretts' book was reviewed by the New York Times. The predictable bad news is that the Times attacked it as a one-sided polemic pushing the views of the Iranian government.

Why would Flynt and Hillary Leverett, senior members of the US foreign policy establishment, be putting out propaganda for the Iranian government? Laura Secor, author of the Times hit piece, cannot even begin to explain.

Flynt and Hillary Leverett deviate from the standard US propaganda line for one reason and one reason only: That propaganda line is false, and its continued propagation is dangerous.

The Leveretts understand full well that just about everybody who is allowed to publish about Iran in the West - including the author of the New York Times review - is obliged to parrot the anti-Islamic-revolution line. So-called "experts" are obliged to pretend that Iranians "chafe under the regime of the clerics," even though most Iranians obviously support the legacy of their revolution. (Just as most Americans support the legacy of the American revolution - except that the support is stronger in Iran because the revolution was more recent, and the bad guys much worse.)

Why do American "Iran experts" consistently get it wrong? As the Leveretts explain, most Americans who study and write about Iran get most of their information from two kinds of Iranians:

1) Wealthy exiles who fled the Revolution, which they despise, and are now living comfortably in Los Angeles - in many cases trying to extort money from the US taxpayer for their absurd anti-Islamic-Revolution schemes. These folks are the equivalent of the Cuban "gusanos" who spent the past fifty years trying to convince us that everyone in Cuba hates the Cuban Revolution and Fidel Castro. They are con-artists lining up in hopes of becoming the Iranian Chalabi.

2) Wealthy English-speaking secularist-types from North Tehran, who represent a minuscule fraction of Iran's population. These folks tried to launch the CIA-Soros sponsored "green revolution" of 2009 by making ludicrously false charges of election fraud after that year's elections. (In Going to Tehran, the Leveretts show that there was not a shred of evidence of significant fraud in the 2009 Iranian elections - as those crying fraud implicitly admitted in their failure to even try to provide the evidence that would have been easily available had widespread fraud actually occurred.)

The mainstream "experts" get most of their information from the small minority of Iranians opposed to the revolution. Like Chalabi, the Iranian gusanos tell the Americans what they want to hear. The Americans dutifully echo it. The result is a bubble of false information. If you live inside the bubble, eating, breathing, and excreting lies, you can be gainfully employed as an "Iran-expert" professor or adviser  think-tanker or diplomat. If you live outside the bubble - or attempt to pop it, as the Leveretts have - you will be attacked and marginalized and your career will be damaged.

In this climate, it's easy to see why even the good books about Iran carry an anti-Revolution bias.

The Twilight War: The Secret History of America's Thirty-Year Conflict with Iran by David Crist

One such good book, well worth reading, is David Crist's The Twilight War: The Secret History of America's Thirty-Year Conflict with Iran. Crist is an official US military historian - the book jacket calls him "a historian for the US government and adviser to top political and military officials" - so one expects a partial, one-sided view, and in that expectation one is not disappointed. But for a one-sided military history from a pro-US-imperialist perspective, Crist's book is exceptionally valuable.

It is also perversely entertaining. The story of the US's clumsy attempts to crush Iran's Islamic Revolution is reminiscent of Elmer Fudd's attempts to hunt down and shoot Bugs Bunny. Every time Elmer, dressed as Uncle Sam, sends a shotgun blast into a rabbit hole, that pesky turban-wearing Iwanian wabbit pops up behind him, gives him a quick kick in the ass, and says "nyah, what's up, doc?" Latest episode: In a fit of forgetfulness, Elmer "Uncle Sam" Fudd takes out Iran's two biggest antagonists - the Taliban and Saddam - and then grumbles when the pesky Iwanian wabbit pops up from his hole looking healthier than ever.

So what is the US-Iran conflict really about? Crist sums it up: "Hard liners in Iran reject the status quo of American supremacy in the region" (p. 5). What Crist doesn't add, but should, is that the vast majority of the people of the region, whether Arab, Persian, or Turk, whether Sunni, Shi'a, or Christian, also reject that status quo. And like the Iranian leadership, that majority wants to put an end to the genocidal/apartheid Jewish-supremacy state in what everyone in the region refers to as Occupied Palestine. But unlike the Iranian revolutionaries and their heirs, few others in the region have been able to mount a successful challenge to American and Zionist power.

Crist's all-too-accurate observation - that the real issue is the universally-hated status quo of US-Zionist hegemony in the region - puts a new spin on George W. Bush's famous line "you're either with us or against us." In a way, Bush was right. There are two kinds of people in the Middle East: Scumbags who sell out their people by cooperating with American-Zionist hegemony in the region, and decent people who fight that hegemony. Iran's government, unlike most Middle Eastern governments, has been in the hands of decent people since 1979.

Crist's book offers lively, detailed descriptions of various American soldiers, sailors and spies who have been fighting the American "twilight war" against Iran during the past four decades. Few of these people seem to have noticed that they are fighting on the side of the scumbags.

As an official military historian, Crist naturally gives us the "official story" of disputed events. He opines that Ayatollah Khomeini's son died of a natural heart attack, not one induced by the Shah's agents and their CIA masters. He blames the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983 on Hizbullah and Iran, with nary a mention of possible Israeli complicity and/or orchestration. He blames Iranian surrogates for blowing up the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996. (I am not saying he is necessarily wrong about any of these events, but am just pointing out that they are disputed.) And of course, he accepts the ludicrous official version of 9/11, according to which guys who couldn't fly Cessnas supposedly controlled-demolitioned three skyscrapers with two jetliners, then flew a third jetliner all over the eastern half of the US unnoticed by any air defenses for almost 90 minutes after "hijackings" had been reported, finishing with a physically-impossible stunt-flight into the side of the Pentagon furthest from the top brass.

Despite his dedication to official story-lines, Crist visibly flinches when recounting the official version of the US shoot-down of Iran Air 655 in 1988. After the USS Vincennes ostensibly disobeyed orders and entered Iranian waters, Captain Rogers and Lt. Commander Scott Lustig shot down Iran Air 655, killing the 290 passengers. The US lied and claimed the Vincennes had been in international waters the whole time - a lie exposed by a Newsweek article in 1992. After the US military's slaughter of 290 Iranian civilians, improbably explained as a "fog of war" snafu, Crist reports that:

"The US military handed out medals. Captain Rogers received a Legion of Merit medal, a high-level award usually given to a commander following a successful command, not to one who could be viewed as having been responsible for the death of 290 innocents. Lustig received a comparable medal and went on to get promoted" (p. 369).

Crist notes that most Iranians believe the shootdown of Iran Air 655 was an act of terrorism designed to force Iran to end its war with Iraq, which had been heavily armed by the US, encouraged to invade Iran, and massively supported, especially during the last years of the war. That is why Rogers and Lustig were lavished with honors and promotions for slaughtering 290 innocents - because they had been following orders when they conducted the terrorist attack on a civilian airliner. Crist does not offer any good reasons to disagree with the Iranian view.

As he follows the US-Iran "twilight war" into its present phase, Crist seems to grasp the dynamic driving present American policy: A hard-line neocon-Zionist element is trying to carry out Netanyahu's "clean break" by destroying the Middle East and rebuilding it in a form more amenable to Israeli geopolitical aspirations; while a realist faction pushes back against the 9/11-triggered neocon war on the region, and tries to make US interests, rather than Israeli ones, the cornerstone of policy. Crist presents both perspectives, but seems to favor the realists; at the same time, his failure to make a clear distinction between the two factions, and to clearly grasp and state that the neocon policy is Israel-driven, could mislead naive readers.

Crist does tellingly point out that Wolfowitz's ultra-Zionist, judeocentric worldview led to at least one major strategic blunder: When the US military debated rehabilitating some of the Ba'ath party apparatus to provide security for Iraq in the wake of the 2003 invasion, Wolfwowitz nixed the proposal: "They're Nazis!" Wolfwowitz apparently sees the world through the lens of the holocaust; everything he does is geared toward preventing the demise of the Jewish state in Occupied Palestine, which, in his view, would be the equivalent of second holocaust. (How a person with such a fanatical loyalty to a foreign state became a US policy-maker is a very interesting question.)

The neocon "clean break" plan aimed at regime change not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Libya, Sudan, Syria, and Iran. The current war on Syria, for the neocons, is a step towards their long-awaited invasion of Iran: Syria and Iran are the last two independent states in the region; all the others have been subjugated as US-Israeli vassals.

Will Crist will have to update his book to include a future US war on Iran? Crist ends his book ominously: "Soon it may no longer be twilight; the light is dimming, and night may well be approaching at long last" (572). If Netanyahu succeeds in tricking the US into attacking Iran, who would the outcome favor? Given the war games that give Iran the advantage in any such conflict, it seems likely that the pesky Iwanian wabbit will continue to dodge Elmer Fudd's bullets for the foreseeable future.

In the Rose Garden of the Martyrs: A Memoir of Iran  and The Struggle for Iran by Christopher de Bellaigue

Another author with an anti-Revolution bias who is still worth reading is Christopher de Bellaigue, the former Tehran correspondent for The Economist. De Ballaigue is married to a well-off, liberal, secular architect from North Tehran, so it is unsurprising that his views are in line with those of the Iranian gusano exiles and their domestic supporters.

His 2004 book In the Rose Garden of the Martyrs is at its best when it is describing sardonic scenes, some of them borderline-surreal, from the author's experience in Iran. De Bellaigue is an accomplished descriptive writer with an eye for the absurd, who is not above occasionally making fun of himself. Unfortunately, when he makes fun of people, it usually isn't himself. Instead, he mostly looks down on Iranians who strike him as déclassé. These are the ordinary, religious, working-class Iranians who make up the backbone of the conservative forces that he despises. For de Bellaigue, it seems that these people, and their religion, are physically grotesque, and often smell bad: The sanctuary at Qom is "a tight room with an overwhelming gold-plated sarcophagus and a pungent smell from the feet" where pilgrims indulge in a "lugubrious revel" (p. 89). His religious and conservative informant, Mr. Zarif, has "certainly widdled according to the prophet's example, squatting so the piss doesn't splash on his trousers" (p.115) and has hairs growing out of his nose.

Though he viscerally identifies with the upper-class secularist element of Iranian society, de Bellaigue does manage to tell some important truths that reflect well on the Islamic revolution. The chapter "Gas" (p.181-205) covers some of the West's war crimes during the Iran-Iraq war, when it encouraged Saddam's invasion of Iran, then sold chemical weapons to the Iraqis, who used it repeatedly and to horrific effect, without any protest from the international community. De Bellaigue offers moving narratives from Iranian veterans of that war - narratives that need to be heard by the West, which is generally clueless about how the lingering effects of the Iraqi/Western war on the Islamic Revolution shaped Iranian political consciousness.

De Bellaigue's The Struggle for Iran is not nearly as interesting as In the Rose Garden of the Martyrs. It rather drily voices an Iranian political perspective somewhere between the reformism of Khatami and the arguably treasonous anti-Islamic-Revolution position of the LA gusanos. De Bellaigue seems blind to the reasons why most Iranians, and most Middle Easterners, are anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist, and pro-Islamist. But - unlike the neocons and the wannabe-Chalabi gusanos in LA - at least De Bellaigue recognizes the reality that the Islamic Revolution is here to stay:

In this poisonous atmosphere, it is hard to imagine that the reformers can persuade the conservatives to give up power voluntarily. A popular explosion remains a distant prospect; most Iranians do not want another revolution, and the police and revolutionary guards are disciplined and loyal. Unless the reformers can muster allies in the conservative establishment, or find new ways to bring public pressure on it, Iran seems fated to an unyielding form of Islamic rule.

The sooner the West comes to terms with the fact that the Islamic Revolution isn't going away - and recognizes the justice of the Islamic Republic's demands for an end to Zionism and imperialism - the better the prospects for peace in the Middle East, and the world.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Jeffrey Goldberg confesses: The real "terror threat" is from neocons like him

My 2009 book Questioning the War on Terror began by pointing out that terrorism is less of a threat to Americans than bathtub drownings and lightning strikes.

Since then, the "terror-bathtub" meme has gone viral. I push it every chance I get, and I'm hearing more and more echoes.

Someone at Mossad's psychological warfare division has apparently decided that the "terrorism is less dangerous than bathtubs" thing has become an actionable threat. So they assigned Jeffrey Goldberg, former guard at an Israeli political prison, to bash me with a bathtub.

Goldberg's new article Terrorism vs. bathtubs: the false analogy on danger doesn't give me  credit for pushing the meme...but I'll take it anyway.

Goldberg proves to be as good at torturing logic and evidence as he was at torturing imprisoned Palestinian activists. By twisting, omitting, or lying about facts, and engaging in leaps of logic, he makes a non-argument whose empty core seethes with rabid Islamophobic bigotry. In the end, he makes a confession in Straussian doublespeak: His surface argument appears to support the idea that terrorism is a threat; but a close reading shows that he knows the "threat" is a hoax, perpetrated by people like himself in order to trick the US into fighting Israel's enemies.

To the extent that he addresses the argument, he concedes it in advance. Yes, Goldberg admits, it's true: "The annual risk of drowning in a bathtub is one in 800,000, while the annual risk of being killed by a terrorist is one in 20 million." In other words, you are about 25 times more likely to drown in your bathtub than to be killed by a terrorist.

So why have we shredded the Constitution, launched criminal wars of aggression that have killed millions and ruined the lives of tens of millions, destroyed our economy, and turned the USA into a permanently-militarized banana republic? Because, Goldberg informs us, Muslims are much, much worse than bathttubs. Unlike bathtubs, those nasty Muslims are conspiring to kill more of us than the pitifully insignificant number they have killed so far.

If they somehow managed to double the number of people they kill, terrorism might become...GASP...one-twelfth of the threat posed by bathtubs. If they raised the number they kill by a factor of ten, they might become half as dangerous as bathtubs. Oh my God! The horror!

In reality, extremist Muslims commit only about 6% of the terrorist attacks in the USA. Extremist Jews commit 7%. (Source: FBI statistics.) But for some odd reason, Goldberg focuses only terrorism attributed to Muslims. He claims that "individuals in the Islamist orbit" are seeking to become as dangerous as bathtubs. 

How about "individuals in the Jewish orbit" - like Larry Silverstein, Netanyahu's close friend, who admitted to blowing up World Trade Center 7, and presumably also blew up the Towers, murdering thousands of Americans? Or "individuals in the Jewish orbit" like legendary Mossad agent Mike Harari, who threw a huge party to celebrate the success of the 9/11 operation, and bragged that he had helped orchestrate the attack? Or "individuals in the Jewish orbit" like the Israelis arrested with truckloads of explosives on the morning of 9/11 shortly before they were about to blow up New York's bridges and tunnels? If "individuals in the Jewish orbit" blow up any more skyscrapers (which seems plausible, given that Silverstein used some of his billions of dollars in WTC insurance fraud money to buy Chicago's Sears Tower) they might even become as dangerous as bathtubs. They would have to blow up about twenty-five skyscrapers with 2,500 people each, or fifty skyscrapers with 1,250 people each, before those "individuals in the Jewish orbit" became as lethal as bathtubs...but hey, with Silverstein's chutzpah, anything is possible.

Goldberg lies outrageously as he seeks to paint Muslims, I mean "individuals in the Islamist orbit," as a danger comparable to, or perhaps even greater than, the danger of bathtubs. Goldberg: "As early as 1998, Osama bin Laden asserted that Islam required him to use weapons of mass destruction in the conduct of his jihad, and he made the acquisition of these weapons a high priority."

In fact, no source on earth claims that Bin Laden, or anyone else, has ever "asserted that Islam required him to use weapons of mass destruction." Goldberg's claim is a blood libel.

In fact, the worst thing Bin Laden or any "al-Qaeda" types have ever said boils down to: "If you kill X numbers of us, we have the right to kill X numbers of you to retaliate and dissuade you from further mass killings." Every nation on earth, every military, professes the same doctrine...except Israel, which says "we have the right to kill TEN of you in our war of aggression, for every one of us you kill in self-defense."

According to reports of alleged Bin Laden interviews by ABC News and Time Magazine in 1998, Bin Laden stated that ACQUIRING (not using) nuclear weapons to defend the world's Muslims (not to launch any kind of aggression against anyone) is a religious duty. Since the rulers of the US and many other nations apparently believe that acquiring nuclear weapons to defend their people is a patriotic duty, it is unclear how Bin Laden's position is different from theirs.

But what was Bin Laden doing being interviewed by ABC News and Time Magazine, anyway, if he was the world's most dangerous terrorist? Obviously there was some kind of information warfare operation going on. Some think Bin Laden was a US-Saudi-Israeli operative all along; others suggest that he and his organization were infiltrated and manipulated. For example: All sources agree that Ali Mohamed, who orchestrated the attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, was a US intelligence agent who infiltrated al-Qaeda. In all likelihood, Ali Mohamed perpetrated those bombings as part of a US-Israeli intelligence operation designed to set Bin Laden up as a patsy for the coming 9/11 world-historical event. (Bin Laden, who was a bit gullible but not stupid, realized he had been set up, and spent the fall of 2001 denying any connection to 9/11 and instead blamed the event on American Jewish radicals...but for some reason, the US media refused to report those statements to the American people...then also failed to report Bin Laden's death in 2001, the evidence that all post-2001 "Bin Laden" statements have been hoaxes, and many other things.)

Goldberg's attempt to manufacture an Islamic threat grasps at straws: "I don’t think it’s probable that Islamists will one day be able to launch a nonconventional attack on an American target. But I think it’s plausible, and now that mass stockpiles of chemical weapons may be in flux in a highly unstable Syria, the likelihood that these weapons will fall into the hands of al- Qaeda-influenced organizations is going up, at least slightly." That's right, Jeff: Since the US-Israel axis and its regional puppets are giving their al-Qaeda mercenaries chemical weapons to set up a false-flag event to blame on Assad, I suppose it's at least "plausible though not probable" that we might suffer some blowback.

After blowing smoke designed to obscure his admission that the alleged threat from terrorism is indeed vanishingly small, Goldberg claims that the real problem is not the actual terrorism (yes, he admits, bathtubs are worse) but the resulting Orwellian reaction: "...security procedures...that are onerous and debilitating."

I'm with you on that one, Jeff.

There is no meaningful threat from terrorism, except the Orwellian security measures that neocons like you are forcing down our throats.
adoption of security procedures that may be effective but are still onerous and debilitating. - See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/terror_061313.html?c=y&page=2#sthash.tSTBRdqv.dpuf

To eliminate the threat from terrorism, all we have to do is eliminate the Orwellian security measures - and the whole National Security State.

So to end the only real threat from terrorism, let's repeal the Patriot Act.

To end the only real threat from terrorism, let's repeal the NDAA.

To end the only real threat from terrorism, let's abolish the Department of Homeland Security.

To end the only real threat from terrorism, let's abolish the CIA, NSA, and other spy agencies.

To end the only real threat from terrorism, let's slash the military budget by 95%, close our more than 900 military bases around the world, bring all the troops home, defend our borders, and mind our own business. (Then no terrorists, whether from Islamic or Jewish orbits, would have any motive to attack us.)

And finally: To end the only real threat from terrorism, let's prosecute the real 9/11 criminals - and the rest of the Israeli agents, including Jeff Goldberg, who have hijacked America.

As early as 1998, Osama bin Laden asserted that Islam required him to use weapons of mass destruction in the conduct of his jihad, and he made the acquisition of these weapons a high priority. - See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/terror_061313.html?c=y&page=2#sthash.tSTBRdqv.dpuf

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

David Ray Griffin, Gilad Atzmon take the United Nations!

Hillel Neuer: Unwitting publicist for two
of the most important authors of our time
When Israeli propagandist Sayan Hillel Neuer stood up on the floor of the United Nations and started waving around David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor and Gilad Atzmon's The Wandering Who?, he probably didn't realize that he was giving priceless PR to two of the most important books of our time.

And yes, "priceless" is the word. Get a load of Neuer hawking Griffin's and Atzmon's books:

Neuer's unintentional book-promotion stunt was meant to be part of his witch-hunt against Special UN Human Rights Rapporteur Richard Falk, who has warmly reviewed both books. (Listen to my recent interview with Richard Falk here.)  But what Neuer apparently doesn't grasp is that the vast majority of people at the UN, especially the delegates from countries other than the US and Europe, absolutely loathe hysterical Zionist idiots such as himself. You can bet that after Neuer's little stunt, many of those who witnessed it made a note to head for the bookstore or library to pick up a copy of Griffin's and Atzmon's books.

Most UN delegates are favorably disposed toward 9/11 truth and anti-Zionism. On the several occasions when Iran's soon-to-be ex-president Ahmadinejad has stood before the UN and called 9/11 an inside job, the US and Israeli delegates, and a handful of US-Israeli puppet delegates, stood up and walked out. But the representatives of the vast majority of the world's delegates not only refused to join the walkout, but stayed to give Ahmadinejad standing ovations! Obviously most of the world's people, including their UN delegates, hold views closer to those of Griffin and Atzmon than to those of Neuer and his neocon uber-Zionist colleagues.

I was so impressed by Neuer's genius as a book promoter that I decided to send him a proposal:

Dear Sayan Hilllel Neuer,

I saw you hawking David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor and Gilad Atzmon's The Wandering Who? on the floor of the United Nations, and wondered whether you might consider doing the same thing with my books Questioning the War on Terror and Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie. I believe that Richard Falk has made favorable remarks about one or both of my books, including this endorsement:

"I am grateful to you for your clarity and perseverance on the most significant unresolved issues confronting the nation!" -Richard Falk, Professor of International Law, Princeton University; United Nations Special Human Rights Rapporteur

Since you apparently agree with me that Richard Falk has excellent taste in books, perhaps that blurb will be enough to convince you to stage a public relations event at the UN on my behalf.

I admit that my books do not break new ground in the way that The New Pearl Harbor and The Wandering Who? do. Griffin and Atzmon are geniuses; I merely stand on the shoulders of such giants. But I hope you will agree with me, and with Richard Falk, that my humble efforts are not entirely without merit, and deserve to be vaunted on the floor of the United Nations.


Dr. Kevin Barrett

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Iran: Threat or Menace? Part 2: Candidates and Issues

In Part One of this series, I covered some important historical background to Iranian politics in general, and the upcoming June 14th presidential elections in particular.

Today, I will consider some specific candidates and issues.

The two main political groupings in Iranian politics are the principlists and reformists. The former stress adhering to the principles of the Islamic revolution, and generally favor principle over expediency; while the latter are more willing to bend or compromise principles as they search for pragmatic solutions.

The currently favored presidential candidate is Supreme National Security Council President Saeed Jalili, a leading principlist. Saeed Jalili has been the top Iranian representative in nuclear negotiations. He is committed to a principled position: Iran has the right to an independent nuclear energy program, including uranium enrichment - but it will not build nuclear weapons. Saeed Jalili argues that Iran is complying with its international obligations under the NPT, so the Israeli-led terrorism and sanctions against Iran are criminal acts of aggression. (Israel is itself a nuclear outlaw; it has refused to sign the NPT, and has built and deployed an estimated 400 nuclear weapons, which hang like swords of Damocles over the heads of its neighbors.)

Additionally, Jalili and many other Iranians argue that the West, especially the US, has also been violating the spirit if not the letter of the NPT by failing to live up to NPT provisions demanding that the nuclear nations make a good faith effort to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely from their arsenals. Why should Iran, which is complying with the NPT to the letter, be penalized - while Israel shreds the NPT as a rogue outlaw state, and the US refuses to comply with the NPT provision mandating progress toward the complete elimination of nuclear weapons?

The leading reformist candidate, Hassan Rohani - who negotiated with the West during the Presidency of Mohammad Khatami (1997 to 2005) - has criticized Saeed Jalili's efficacy as a nuclear negotiator: "All of our problems stem from this - that we didn’t make an utmost effort to prevent the (nuclear) dossier from going to the (UN) Security Council," he said in a recent debate.

But Jalili responded: “At a time when some friends were saying... we should avoid unnecessary confrontations with them (Western powers), what were the results?...During the term of Mr Khatami and after all the cooperation on Afghanistan (then), the (United States) called us ‘the axis of evil’. This method is wrong. If we want to pursue this method, we will see those results.”

Most Iranians seem to accept Saeed Jalili's point: From 1997 to 2005 under the reformist president Khatami,  Iran bent over backward to cooperate with the West. But the West, led in its Mideast policies by Zionist extremists, viewed the reformist President's willingness to compromise as weakness, and pursued an intransigently aggressive policy toward Iran. Even after Iran more or less cooperated with the illegal US invasion of Afghanistan, Bush's ultra-Zionist speechwriter David Frum labeled Iran part of the "axis of evil," and the PNAC-dominated Bush-Cheney regime rebuffed all Iranian attempts at compromise and cooperation - including a very generous "grand bargain" that would have ended the post-1979 US-Iranian estrangement.

Saeed Jalili, like Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, believes that Iran will have a better chance of working out its differences with the West, especially in the long term, if it adheres to a consistent and principled policy. Partly for this reason - and also because Iranians have figured out that the so-called "green revolution" unrest of 2009 was an anti-Iran covert op led by Soros-funded NGOs and Western intelligence agencies - most observers do not think Rohani and the reformists are likely to win this year.

The other leading candidate, alongside Saeed Jalili, is Tehran mayor Mohammed Baqer Qalibaf, also  a principlist. But unlike Saeed Jalili, whose first area of expertise is foreign policy, Mohammed Baqer Qalibaf is a domestic policy expert whose first priority is to fix Iran's economy. Qalibaf's concern with the economy, which has been struggling due in part to Western sanctions, appears to be a good political strategy; recent polls have suggested that he is now tied for first place with Saeed Jalili, with each candidate drawing roughly 30% of the prospective vote.

One sign of the reformists' weakness, and the principlists' strength, is that reformist candidate Mohammed Reza Aref felt obliged to withdraw from the race a few days ago, acting on advice from former reformist president Khatami. Aref's motivation, according to Press TV, was to give the reformists a better chance in the elections. Following Aref's withdrawal, principlist candidate Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel also withdrew, presumably to level the playing field by eliminating any reformist advantage gained by Aref's withdrawal.

There are divergent views in Iran about how badly the economy is being hurt by Western sanctions. The reformists, who are backed by a comprador class that profits from trading imports for Iranian crude, view the sanctions in purely negative terms. Many principlists disagree, pointing out that the "resistance economy" of self-sufficiency through increased manufacturing and turning oil and gas into value-added products may actually benefit Iran in the long run. By forcing Iran to invest its money in making its own goods, rather than squandering the money on imports, the sanctions may be helping Iran build the Middle East's most powerful manufacturing sector. In this sense, the sanctions are the equivalent of a protectionist trade policy, which sacrifices short-term access to foreign goods in favor of long term industrial and technological growth.  (Asking people to sacrifice short term well-being for long-term goals, of course, is not always an easy political sell.)

The two-year devaluation of the Iranian rial to less than one third of its value against the dollar - a devaluation driven by the sanctions - has hurt those Iranians who need foreign currency. When I traveled to Iran last February, I met a student who was studying in Europe but thinking of permanently returning to Iran, since his family could no longer afford the foreign currency needed to pay his tuition. Those who import foreign goods to sell in Iran have also been devastated by the devaluation. Though cutting luxury imports may be a good thing, many Iranians have suffered and even died from lack of availability of imported medicines.

But as all economists know, devaluation has a positive side: It encourages manufacturing and exports by making your goods cheaper compared to foreign ones. That is why countries interested in building a strong "real economy" through manufacturing always try to keep their currency as low as possible. (It has worked for China!) Iran's exports of value-added products have been booming during the "crisis" of the past two years, suggesting that the sanctions may, ironically, be helping Iran become even stronger vis-a-vis its Middle Eastern neighbors than it was before - the exact opposite of their intended effect.

Despite the positive side of the sanctions, both reformists and principlists would ultimately like them to end. For some, the real question is whether there is anything Iran can do to hasten the process. The principlists point out that thus far, the US has been unwilling to take yes for an answer: when Iran recently agreed to Obama's proposed solution to the nuclear issue, as delivered by the President of Brazil and the Prime Minister of Turkey, Obama reneged on his own plan. Iranians wondered whether the US has a secret Supreme Leader somewhere who vetoed Obama's proposal. (Some suggest that the hard-line Zionist faction in the US is playing the role of Supreme Leader in this respect.)

Beyond the question of the sanctions, some candidates argue that they could manage the economy more skillfully than the current administration. Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf has criticized President Ahmadinejad's economic management, and claimed that he could do better, based on his record as the mayor overseeing ambitious urban renewal policies in Tehran that most observers consider successful. (Personally, I think Tehran needs to vastly reduce automobile use in favor of mass transit and bicycles, but I doubt I would get many votes if I ran for office in Iran on that platform.)

Whatever the results of Iran's elections, they will undoubtedly disappoint the Zionists and imperialists who dominate the West's mainstream media and academia. The Zionist-forged Western official discourse is uniformly hostile to Iran's Islamic revolution, especially to the revolution's pan-Islamic ideals and support for the Palestinian cause. (The Zionists are currently making an all-out effort to neutralize Iran's soft-power strength deriving from revolutionary pan-Islamism and anti-Zionism, by spreading sectarian chaos and anti-Shi'a hysteria through their Gulf proxies.)

Whoever the next president of Iran turns out to be, he will be a supporter of the Islamic Revolution and its basic principles and ideals. That is good news for anyone who cares about justice in the world - and bad news for those addicted to injustice.

Friday, June 7, 2013

Iran: Threat or Menace? Part 1: Background briefing

The first of a three-part series of brief articles considering the run-up to the June 14th Iranian presidential elections

Compared to citizens of other developed countries, Americans are not especially well-informed about the world. Like other peoples only more so, Americans view the world through a glass darkly – a glass darkened by ignorance and prejudice. Much of the fault lies not with the people, but with their corporate-monopoly media.

Consider the case of Iran, a geo-strategical lynchpin nation more than three times the size of Iraq. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran has gotten uniformly bad press in the USA. From derogatory caricatures of the Ayatollah Khomeini – a stunningly brilliant, mystical scholar falsely portrayed as a crude, thuggish dictator – to hysterical exaggerations about Iran's nuclear program, the US media has consistently used Iran as a punching bag. The many positive aspects of Iran and its Islamic Revolution have been ignored, suppressed, or distorted, while negative aspects have been exaggerated or invented out of whole cloth.

Though its political system has been painted as a dictatorial theocracy, the truth is that Iran comes closer to American political ideals of democracy, diversity, and pluralism than any other Middle Eastern nation, with the arguable exception of Turkey. (1) Like the USA, Iran is not a perfect democracy – though its democracy has not suffered the kinds of extreme setbacks represented by the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers, the coup d'état of September 11th, 2001, or the stolen presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. (2)

In Iran, despite the fact that presidential candidates are vetted by a Council of Experts, voters choose from among candidates whose range of views is considerably wider than those of candidates in American elections. Those candidates represent many different, competing power centers: Groups within the clergy that are often at odds with each other; a populist bloc calling for more redistribution of the national wealth; reformists who want to soften the hard edges of the Islamic Revolution's legacy; justice-seeking hardliners associated with the Revolutionary Guards and the basiji volunteer corps; free-market advocates; and many others. Even Jews have considerable political representation in Iran – though their disproportionate power in relation to their numbers is not as extreme as it is in the USA and Western Europe. (Iran's Jews have repeatedly turned down massive bribes from Zionists who want them to emigrate to Israel – not just because they are patriotic Iranians, but because they are doing well, both economically and politically, in Iran.)

One sign of the vibrancy of Iran's democracy is voter turnout, which reached 85% in 2009 and is likely to be strong again this year. (Compare that to US presidential elections, which peaked at 57% in 2012.)

In short: The American founding fathers' ideal of a balance of power between competing factions is more fully realized in Iran than in today's USA, where the two major parties have a monopoly on the political process while offering voters a choice almost as meaningful as “Coke or Pepsi?”

Iran's revolutionary democratic experiment has undoubtedly fallen short of utopian expectations. That is the way of all revolutions. But it does have some significant achievements under its belt.

Its first and foremost achievement is that it has survived the ceaseless attempts of the world's most powerful empire to destroy it. Like Fidel Castro, who survived hundreds of CIA assassination attempts, Iran's Islamic Revolution has spent most of its life dodging American bullets. But unlike Castro's Cuba, the Islamic Republic of Iran has managed to remain reasonably democratic and deeply pluralistic in the face of continuous threats and attacks.

The US tried to “strangle the Islamic Revolution in its cradle” by arming Saddam Hussein and sending him to invade Iran in 1980. Rumsfeld and other US leaders helped Saddam acquire chemical weapons, which he used in terror attacks against Iranian cities as well as against troops on the battlefield. (The joke goes that in 2003, when asked how he knew that Saddam had WMD, Rumsfeld answered, “Because we kept the receipts!”)

The Iran-Iraq war ended in a stalemate in 1988 – Iran would have easily won had it not been for the heavy US-orchestrated Western support for Saddam, including WMD – but Iranians have not forgotten the experience, and their votes have repeatedly elected war heroes and veterans to public office. One of the results of the war, and the subsequent US-led anti-Iran “cold war,” has been the determination of the Iranian people to maintain and assert their independence. That is why Iran's nuclear program has the support of the vast majority of its citizens, including reformists, who want their government to assert its legitimate rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to have a full-fledged, independent nuclear energy program including uranium enrichment, as explicitly permitted by the NPT.

While defending itself against serious outside threats, Iran's revolutionary Islamic Republic has managed a number of impressive social, economic, and technical achievements. Though the Western media has portrayed the Islamic Republic as a medieval theocracy, in alleged contrast to the “modernizing” Shah, the facts are otherwise. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran has:

*Ended child labor.

*Raised life expectancy from 55 to 73 years.

*Provided universal free public education through the end of high school.

*Vastly increased women's education, which lagged far behind men's under the Shah, to the point that today women dominate Iran's universities and publish more than 4,000 books per year.

*Become the second biggest refugee recipient nation in the world, according to the UNHRC.

*Become the largest automobile manufacturer in the Middle East.

*Developed an impressive space program, launching satellites with pulsed plasma thrusters and solar panels.

*Maintained relative harmony between ethnic and religious groups, despite the tremendous diversity, and despite heavily-funded foreign efforts to incite ethnic and sectarian strife.

*Provided more significant aid to the Palestinians, in their struggle to resist occupation, than any other country – which is probably the main reason that the US media and political class, both largely owned and operated by supporters of Israel, are awash in anti-Iran extremism.

It is safe to say that the vast majority of Iran's voters are proud of the progress their nation has made since the revolution of 1979, and determined to maintain Iran's independence (including nuclear rights under the NPT and support for the Palestinians) in the face of foreign bullying. But opinions differ regarding how to best achieve those objectives. In the next article in this series, I will examine some of the issues and candidates in the upcoming June 14th elections.

- - -

(1) Turkey's democracy has not yet fully emerged out of the shadow of its military junta, which is controlled by the US, NATO, and Israel; it is still a partially colonized nation and as such is by definition non-democratic. As for Israel, it is not a Middle Eastern democracy because (1) it is not Middle Eastern, but a European settler colony, and (2) it is not a democracy, since the majority of its rightful voters are not only ineligible to vote, but have actually been ethnically cleansed and confined to de facto concentration camps.

(2) Western media allegations of Iranian election fraud in 2009 were almost hallucinatory in their complete lack of basis in any kind of evidence, as Flynt and Hillary Leverett explain in great detail in their book Going to Tehran.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Erdogan's attack on Syria backfires

"FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has revealed that elements of the Gladio-linked Turkish deep state were used by neoconservative moguls Richard Perle and Douglas Feith to finance the 9/11-anthrax coup d'état of September 11th, 2001. Obviously it is these people, not Erdogan, who hold the real power in Turkey."

Read the article: 

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

The Guardian goes truther! Charlie Skelton exposes "the Great Wall of Bilderberg"

My intel contacts claim that The Guardian is, shall we say, in bed with, and heavily penetrated by, Britain's intelligence services.

Other UK contacts - people close to former high-level MP Michael Meacher - say that Meacher had his life threatened for writing about 9/11 truth in The Guardian. Since Meacher backed down in 2004, fearing for his family's safety, The Guardian published no truthful material whatsoever about 9/11...until September 12th, 2011, when Charlie Skelton's How the world changed after 9/11 blew a lot of minds.

And now, Charlie is at it again: He's covering the formerly top-secret Bilderberg Conference. Charlie's latest: Bilderberg 2013: welcome to 1984. Here's an extract:

At one point in the meeting, during a tense exchange about contingency plans for dog-walkers, Rhodes let slip that Operation Discuss (the codename for the Bilderberg security operation) had been up and running for 18 months. Residents and journalists shared an intake of breath. "Eighteen months?" The reason for all the secrecy? "Terrorism".
Great Wall of Watford  
 The Great Wall of Watford

After 59 years of Bilderbgerg guests scuttling about in the shadows, ducking lenses and dodging the news, that's the rationale we're given? The same rationale, presumably, is behind the Great Wall of Watford, a concrete-and-wire security fence encircling the hotel. As ugly as it is unnecessary, it looks like the kind of thing you throw yourself against in a stalag before being machine-gunned from a watchtower. Appropriately fascistic, you might say, if you regard fascism as "the merger of corporate and government power", as Mussolini put it.

The same threat of "terrorism" was used to justify the no-pedestrian, no-stopping zones near the venue. The police laid out their logic: they had "no specific intelligence" regarding a terror threat. However, in recent incidents, such as Boston and Woolwich, there had been no intelligence prior to the attack. Therefore the lack of any threat of a terror attack fitted exactly the profile of a terror attack. The lack of a threat was a threat. Welcome to 1984.

Why are the Bilderbergers so paranoid about nonexistent "terrorist threats" ?

Maybe it's all a big joke. Maybe they're laughing up their sleeves at us as they use fabricated paranoia to mobilize money and militarism to protect their ill-gotten gains.

But I have another, more Freudian interpretation. I think the Bilderbergers, and the rest of the ruling elite, know perfectly well that they are the most low-down rotten scumbags that have ever walked the earth. I think they know that they deserve to be hit by "terrorists." I think they know that they deserve to be blown up, shot to smithereens, poison-gassed, hacked to death, electrocuted, pierced by shrapnel, ripped to pieces by vicious beasts, and/or otherwise dispatched.

I think they know that if there were any justice in the world, any truth in the world, they would be ripped to pieces by righteously angry mobs, I mean, "terrorists."

So even though there is (for better or worse) not a proverbial chance in hell of such a thing happening, the Bilderbergers are ruled by their secret fears that, however improbably, justice might someday prevail.

I have seen this attitude first-hand. Back in 1984, one of the Midwest's wealthiest men, the Republican industrialist honcho Terry Kohler, came over for dinner. My father, the executive VP of North Sails, was negotiating that company's sale to Kohler.

During the dinner conversation, Terry Kohler's wife Mary made a very interesting remark. It was a lot like George H.W. Bush's famous admission to journalist Sarah McClendon: "If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us." What Mary said was something like: If the Democrats and left-wingers ever get the chance, they will kill us and take everything we have.

Her paranoia was palpable. And it was obviously deeply-rooted in guilt.

Kohler was on the Republican National Steering Committee from 2002 to 2007, a Bush-Cheney Steering Committee member in 2004, and a long-time supporter of Newt Gingrich. Directly or indirectly complicit in 9/11, he would certainly be dealt with harshly if the people ever discovered the truth.

And so the ruling elite continues to wallow in paranoia about what might happen if they ever got what they know they deserve.

Monday, June 3, 2013

6/22 was an inside job!

I just posted a piece by John Kimber on the "predictive programing" suggesting that a big false flag is coming in less than three weeks:

The 6/22/13 U.S. Coup Plot Revealed

From The Simpsons Series 9 Episode 1 (S09E01) 9/21/1997

Also just posted The murderous roots of takfiri sectarianism at Muslims for 9/11 Truth.

Sunday, June 2, 2013

757 crash witnesses at the Pentagon?!

Is that Barbara Olson waving at us from window seat 39E?

Just received this, re: my comments on alleged passenger jet crash witnesses at the Pentagon.

To: Dr. Kevin Barrett

Dear Kevin:

As per our guidelines (Acceptance of Comments), your comments are now on the scientificmethod911.org website. You can view these comments at:


Thanks again for our recent dialog and your comments.


John Wyndham
Moderator for Scientific Method 9/11