truthjihad.com blog

Shameless chutzpah: Could it work for Muslims too?

2012-01-28T08:26:00.000-08:00

As an American Muslim, I am a great admirer of the Jewish people, especially American Jews. I think we Muslims can learn a lot from the way Jews have made their presence felt in American society.
For example, I marvel at the chutzpah of the Beth Shalom Temple in Corona, California, which recently tried to shake down Mel Gibson:

“Our proposal to you, Mr. Gibson, is since you have been cited as an Anti-Semitic, and have denied those allegations, what better way to prove to all your fans and the nay Sayers — than to endorse and help raise funds for our cause — SOS, Save Our Synagogue…Mr. Gibson, we offer you to be a Mensch and make a sizable contribution to our cause.”

I imagine the folks at Beth Shalom Temple need the money for their PR campaign against anti-Semitism. They plan to run ads insisting that contrary to the pernicious stereotypes in films like Mel Brooks' The Producers, Jews are NOT shameless, pushy, money-grubbing opportunists.

If they can pry a few more million dollars loose from Gibson, the next step will be to hire America's latest Jewish overnight sensation, Andrew "assassinate Obama for Israel' Adler, to host a series of ads proving that American Jews do NOT harbor dual loyalties. Adler is the ultimate example of an American who clearly harbors loyalty to only one country. By flooding prime-time TV with images of Adler calling on Israel to assassinate Obama, the BS Temple PR pros should be able to finish off that "dual loyalties" canard once and for all.

And so...if shameless chutzpah pays off for Jews, why not for Muslims too? How about:

Dear Bill Maher,

Our proposal to you, since you have been cited as an Islamophobe, is to send us a million dollars and publicly apologize for calling Muslims a bunch of violent extremists. If you don't do this, we'll come and blow you up.

Sincerely,

Dr. Kevin Barrett

And since just about all of the wealthy and powerful individuals and institutions in America are islamophobic, we should be able to shake them all down.

Then we'll take the billions we've raised, and buy up the media. We'll make sure that Muslims get the majority of key posts, and that a pro-Muslim, anti-Zionist point of view completely dominates the airwaves and headlines.

And we'll use the rest of the money to buy up Congress and the presidency.

And then if anybody even MENTIONS the fact that Muslims have bought up the media and staffed it with a wildly disproportionate number of Muslims and anti-Zionists...and that anti-Zionist Muslims have bought the federal government via bribery...we'll just silence them by calling them Islamophobes.

Now THAT would be al-chutzpah al-akbar.

Islam, family values, and the decline of Western Civilization

2012-01-24T08:50:00.000-08:00

Ominous music plays as images appear on the screen: Muslim terrorists shoot Christians in the head, car bombs explode, executed children lie covered by sheets and a doctored photograph shows an Islamic flag flying over the White House.

“This is the true agenda of much of Islam in America,” a narrator intones. “A strategy to infiltrate and dominate America. ... This is the war you don’t know about.” -NY Times report on anti-Muslim hate film used in NYPD training

Let's try a little historical IQ test. Read these items and connect-the-dots.

* Zionist-made hate-Islam films are shown to American cops and soldiers as part of their training.

* Many Americans, asked what country the US should invade next, say "Iran" - but when asked to find it on the map, they point to places like Australia.

* In California, schools are required to "teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans."

* According to news reports, women kill their children so they can go out partying.

*"Abortion is here to stay; even Republicans know that banning it would be political poison."

Actually, I lied. This isn't an IQ test - it's a Rorsach test. You're welcome to interpret this data any way you want.

Here's how I interpret it: The family unit, the basis of civilization, is falling apart in the West. The collapse of the family, education, public and private morality, aesthetic taste, literature and the arts, religion, grand narratives in general, the birth rate, marriage rate, etc. is symptomatic of steep cultural decline. The West is heading for the New Dark Ages, and there probably isn't much anybody can do about it.*

Neoconservatives, cognizant of imperial collapse, panicked because Israel is the most vulnerable outpost of Western empire, are trying to save Israel, which in their view is synonymous with Western civilization, by uniting the West in hatred of Islam. To succeed in this, they have to tell gigantic lies 24/7/365.

Their central big lie: "Islam is a military threat to the West."

Reality: The Islamic world is militarily feeble. While it is just barely possible that the combined military power of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims might pose a serious threat to the tiny and dubiously legitimate "nation" of Israel - actually a settler colony stolen from the Muslims - there is no "Islamic military threat" to the USA, Europe, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. The Mossad has had to bomb the World Trade Center twice, and launch false-flag attacks all over the globe, to create the appearance of such a threat.

Islam is being targeted not because it is a problem, but because it offers a solution.

There is only one major bloc of seriously religious people left on earth: Practicing Muslims. These are people who stop whatever they are doing (including sleep) at dawn, noon, mid-afternoon, dusk, and nightfall to practice salaat - a quasi-yogic ritual enactment of absolute submission to God. These are people who abstain from all food and drink, including water, throughout the daylight hours for a full month every year. These are people who do not touch alcohol - or any other drugs except maybe coffee or tea. These are people who abstain from sex outside of marriage.

Like Christians 500 years ago, practicing Muslims are as interested in the next life as in this one. (Unlike some extremist medieval Christians, they do not go so far as to denigrate this life or claim that it means nothing while the next life means everything; in this, as in all things, Islam offers balance.)

Among practicing Muslims, rates of crime, suicide, alcoholism, drug addiction, venereal disease, abortion, divorce, etc. are off-the-charts low. (Google "Islam most civilized Javed Jamil" for the data.)

The single strongest indicator of non-recidivism for prisoners is conversion to Islam.

The number of seriously practicing Muslims on earth is in the many hundreds of millions. Due to their relative success in forming and maintaining strong families, they are demographically outpacing less-religious folk, especially Westerners.

And Islam is a straightforward, sensible religion that "works." Anybody who practices it sincerely gets the benefits - as reflected by the statistics showing that practicing Muslims are doing off-the-charts well in all important social indicators. (These, of course, are just material indicators of spiritual well-being, i.e. inner peace.)

That's why Islam is the fastest growing religion in America, and in the world.

And THAT is the real "Islamic threat."

* * *

* Required reading on the decline of Western civilization includes Spengler, Gibbon, Morris Berman, Neil Postman, Eric Larsen, Pat Buchanan, Joseph Tainter, Don Delillo...that should keep you busy for awhile. Note that Berman is brilliant but gets 9/11 wrong. (The 9/11 inside job, and its acceptance by the masses and alleged intelligentsia despite all the elephant-in-the-living-room evidence, is an even stronger symptom of cultural decline than all of other evidence that Americans can't tell their collective ass from a hole in the ground put together.)

Dear Editor of The Jewish Times: Please re-think your call to assassinate Obama

2012-01-20T19:32:00.000-08:00

Sent to aadler@jewishtimes.com

Dear Andrew Adler,

As the editor of a mainstream Jewish publication, you have an awful lot of chutzpah to call for the assassination of the President of the United States by the Mossad. I hope this email reaches you before the Secret Service does! If by some miracle you remain free on your own recognizance, or can afford the bail, I would love to discuss the pros and cons of a Mossad assassination of Obama on my radio show with you. I have openings next Wednesday and Friday, 4 to 5 pm Eastern.

You ask, "what would you do" if you were the Prime Minister of Israel, facing the fact that a war with Hezbullah and Hamas would be much nastier for Israel in 2017 than in 2012. Your answer is that Netanyahu's only choice is to start a war now - with Iran as well as Hezbullah and Hamas. And the only way to start that war is to kill President Obama, who stands in its way.

When an apparently logical line of reasoning leads to an illogical or insane conclusion, it is time to re-think your logic. (I'm no Obama fan either, but let's face it, publishing calls for his assassination is stupid and immoral as well as illegal! And war with Iran would be a disaster!)

So start re-thinking. Israel has been operating according to your kind of logic since 1948. And that logic is leading to its destruction.

In 1948, it seemed logical to slaughter whole villages full of men, women and children, in order to exterminate part of the Palestinian population and force most of the survivors into exile. This was the only logical way to get a Jewish majority for the new state. That logic, however, has led to a situation in which billions of people around the world hate Israel, and a significant fraction of those are committed to its destruction.

In 1963, "worst-case" logic dictated that Israel obtain nuclear weapons. To that end, it seems likely that the Mossad participated alongside elements of the CIA in the murder of President Kennedy, who was determined to deny Israel nuclear weapons. A growing minority of Americans is joining a much larger number of intellectuals from around the world who are aware of this likelihood; the result is more anger and disgust with Israel. (See Michael Collins Piper's Final Judgment.)

In 1967, strategic logic dictated an attempt to create a Greater Israel through a disguised war of aggression. During this war, strategic logic dictated that Israel destroy the USS Liberty and murder its entire crew. Through a minor miracle, that attempted failed, most of the Liberty crew survived, and today, a growing number of Americans loathes Israel in large part due to this incident.

Since the 1967 war of aggression, paranoid/bellicose "logic" has led Israel to refuse to return the territories it stole, despite the consensus of the world community that it must do so. The result is that Israel is a pariah nation, and few around the world would shed a tear at its demise. Ever-growing numbers want a world without Israel. So, in a vicious circle, Israel resorts to ever-more-insane acts of desperation.

Many further examples of your kind of logic have ensued: The Sabra and Shatilla massacres, false-flag terror attacks around the world, cross-border assassinations, invasions of Lebanon, Operation Cast Lead, and so on. Each time Israel acts this way, people like you cite the logical strategic necessity for such actions; while a much larger number of people incur more and more hatred and disgust for Israel and Zionism.

Personally, I have always disliked Israel, because I have always disliked injustice. But until recent years, this was not a high-priority issue for me. Now, after watching one Zionist outrage after another - the most important being the neocon-Zionist coup d'etat on 9/11/2001 and the ensuing war on Islam for Israel - I am committed to putting an end to Zionism.

And I'm far from the only one. I am told by people in a position to know that disgust with Israel is at an all-time high at the upper levels of the US military command. If Netanyahu takes your advice and murders Obama, you just might get to see Israel reduced to smoking radioactive rubble, and American Zionists - even those who had not overtly called for the assassination of the President - made to pay a heavy price. (I shudder to imagine what might happen to you personally, given your openly-published call for Obama's assassination.)

As you admit in your article, Israel has painted itself into a corner, a Kobayashi Maru situation, a "no-win scenario or facing a solution that involves redefining the problem." Maybe the best way to redefine the problem would be to forget about plans for mass-murdering Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iranians, forget about plans for assassinating the President of the United States, forget about plans for more big false-flag attacks, and go back to square one. Admit Israel's responsibility for the dead-end situation it is in. Admit who is really the aggressor, and who is the victim. And then, wholeheartedly seek to make amends, as Jews are supposed to do every Yom Kippur.

Imagine if Netanyahu gave a Yom Kippur speech along these lines: "We're sorry. You Palestinians are right. We are the aggressors, and we have perpetrated a grave injustice - not just in 1967, but in 1948 and before that. Your demands for right of return plus compensation, along with a return to the 1967 borders, are almost pathetically minimal and reasonable. Apartheid and endless war doesn't have a future. We want to work with you to build a new Palestine-Israel and a new Middle East. Come home - in numbers that we'll work out based on what's practical. We're willing to endure a temporary lowering of the standard of living for Israeli Jews and Russian-immigrant fake Jews in order to help you return to the country we stole so unjustly, and make it a country for you as well as for us."

After a certain number of Israeli outrages, it will be too late for this kind of offer. It may even be too late now. But it's worth a try, since the current road is such an obvious dead-end.

If you disagree, you're welcome to join me on my radio show and explain why. But please don't use my show as a platform to call for the assassination of the President.

Best,

Kevin Barrett

Dear Andrew Adler,

As the editor of a mainstream Jewish publication, you have an awful lot of chutzpah to call for the assassination of the President of the United States by the Mossad. I hope this email reaches you before the Secret Service does! If by some miracle you remain free on your own recognizance, or can afford the bail, I would love to discuss the pros and cons of a Mossad assassination of Obama on my radio show with you. I have openings next Wednesday and Friday, 4 to 5 pm Eastern.

You ask, "what would you do" if you were the Prime Minister of Israel, facing the fact that a war with Hezbullah and Hamas would be much nastier for Israel in 2017 than in 2012. Your answer is that Netanyahu's only choice is to start a war now - with Iran as well as Hezbullah and Hamas. And the only way to start that war is to kill President Obama, who stands in its way.

When an apparently logical line of reasoning leads to an illogical or insane conclusion, it is time to re-think your logic. (I'm no Obama fan either, but let's face it, publishing calls for his assassination is stupid and immoral as well as illegal! And war with Iran would be a disaster!)

So start re-thinking. Israel has been operating according to your kind of logic since 1948. And that logic is leading to its destruction.

In 1948, it seemed logical to slaughter whole villages full of men, women and children, in order to exterminate part of the Palestinian population and force most of the survivors into exile. This was the only logical way to get a Jewish majority for the new state. That logic, however, has led to a situation in which billions of people around the world hate Israel, and a significant fraction of those are committed to its destruction.

In 1963, "worst-case" logic dictated that Israel obtain nuclear weapons. To that end, it seems likely that the Mossad participated alongside elements of the CIA in the murder of President Kennedy, who was determined to deny Israel nuclear weapons. A growing minority of Americans is joining a much larger number of intellectuals from around the world who are aware of this likelihood; the result is more anger and disgust with Israel. (See Michael Collins Piper's Final Judgment.)

In 1967, strategic logic dictated an attempt to create a Greater Israel through a disguised war of aggression. During this war, strategic logic dictated that Israel destroy the USS Liberty and murder its entire crew. Through a minor miracle, that attempted failed, most of the Liberty crew survived, and today, a growing number of Americans loathes Israel in large part due to this incident.

Since the 1967 war of aggression, paranoid/bellicose "logic" has led Israel to refuse to return the territories it stole, despite the consensus of the world community that it must do so. The result is that Israel is a pariah nation, and few around the world would shed a tear at its demise. Ever-growing numbers want a world without Israel. So, in a vicious circle, Israel resorts to ever-more-insane acts of desperation.

Many further examples of your kind of logic have ensued: The Sabra and Shatilla massacres, false-flag terror attacks around the world, cross-border assassinations, invasions of Lebanon, Operation Cast Lead, and so on. Each time Israel acts this way, people like you cite the logical strategic necessity for such actions; while a much larger number of people incur more and more hatred and disgust for Israel and Zionism.

Personally, I have always disliked Israel, because I have always disliked injustice. But until recent years, this was not a high-priority issue for me. Now, after watching one Zionist outrage after another - the most important being the neocon-Zionist coup d'etat on 9/11/2001 and the ensuing war on Islam for Israel - I am committed to putting an end to Zionism.

And I'm far from the only one. I am told by people in a position to know that disgust with Israel is at an all-time high at the upper levels of the US military command. If Netanyahu takes your advice and murders Obama, you just might get to see Israel reduced to smoking radioactive rubble, and American Zionists - even those who had not overtly called for the assassination of the President - made to pay a heavy price. (I shudder to imagine what might happen to you personally, given your openly-published call for Obama's assassination.)

As you admit in your article, Israel has painted itself into a corner, a Kobayashi Maru situation, a "no-win scenario or facing a solution that involves redefining the problem." Maybe the best way to redefine the problem would be to forget about plans for mass-murdering Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iranians, forget about plans for assassinating the President of the United States, forget about plans for more big false-flag attacks, and go back to square one. Admit Israel's responsibility for the dead-end situation it is in. Admit who is really the aggressor, and who is the victim. And then, wholeheartedly seek to make amends, as Jews are supposed to do every Yom Kippur.

Imagine if Netanyahu gave a Yom Kippur speech along these lines: "We're sorry. You Palestinians are right. We are the aggressors, and we have perpetrated a grave injustice - not just in 1967, but in 1948 and before that. Your demands for right of return plus compensation, along with a return to the 1967 borders, are almost pathetically minimal and reasonable. Apartheid and endless war doesn't have a future. We want to work with you to build a new Palestine-Israel and a new Middle East. Come home - in numbers that we'll work out based on what's practical. We're willing to endure a temporary lowering of the standard of living for Israeli Jews and Russian-immigrant fake Jews in order to help you return to the country we stole so unjustly, and make it a country for you as well as for us."

After a certain number of Israeli outrages, it will be too late for this kind of offer. It may even be too late now. But it's worth a try, since the current road is such an obvious dead-end.

If you disagree, you're welcome to join me on my radio show and explain why. But please don't use my show as a platform to call for the assassination of the President.

Best,

Kevin Barrett

PS You might also enjoy my article on "Zionist shots across Obama's bow"

Newt for Caliph!

2012-01-19T13:31:00.000-08:00

Dear Newt Gingrich,

I am writing to volunteer to step in as your new chief campaign adviser, now that your former staff, followers, and prospective voters have deserted you in disgust. I believe I can devise a strategy that will not only get you elected President, despite your recently-revealed foibles, but perhaps even lead to a far more powerful position.

As a Muslim free-speech fanatic, I may seem an unlikely candidate for chief Gingrich advisor. After all, you are on record calling for a "long war" against Islam that will require the US to abrogate its freedom of speech and religious liberty: “This is a serious long-term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country...We will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find, to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech."

Newt, the time has come for you to do your last, best political flip-flop: Stop being a Constitution-shredding Islamophobe, and recognize that there's a freedom-loving Muslim inside you that's just waiting to come out.

Not long ago, you told your wife: "You need to share me." That seems odd, since you're a fanatic proponent of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as "one man and one woman."

Newt, if you want a "one man and two women" marriage, it's doable. As a Muslim, you could conceivably marry up to four wives at once.

The only catch is that you'll have to stop being such a greedy, narcissistic, corrupt, selfish, megalomaniacal asshole.

In Islam, you can't marry more than one wife unless you are sure you can treat each of them equally well. That's a tough order - especially since the Qur'an suggests that men CAN'T treat their wives equally well!

So after you come to Islam, you're going to have to do some serious soul-searching. You're going to have to give up all of those egocentric traits that make you the most loathsome public figure in America - which is saying a lot. You're going to have to stop being such a goddamn hypocrite (the Qur'an reviles hypocrites). You're going to have to stop serving the cause of injustice, and instead work for justice. You're going to have to dedicate your life to truth, and to the service of Allah through good works. And you're going to have to become a loyal and loving caretaker to your wife - or wives, if you really think you (and the women concerned) want that. (Most Muslims don't; the vast majority of us are in monogamous marriages - as was the Prophet Muhammad, SAAS, for most of his adult life.)

Newt, once you've come to Islam, and become a good, pious submitter-to-Allah, just think about the example you'll set for your fellow Americans! The sleaziest douchebag in the country will have suddenly become a good, God-conscious worker-of-justice and persister-in-truth. People will be astounded; it will seem a miracle. Very quickly, the whole country will follow you to Islam.

Then America will elect you President.

And the Islamic world will elect you Caliph.

And you will have finally realized your ambition: "I have an enormous personal ambition.I want to shift the entire planet. And I'm doing it...Oh, this is just the beginning of a 20-or-30-year movement. I'll get credit for it..."

The good news is that you will have shifted the planet towards good, rather than evil. The bad news is that once you've submitted to Allah, you will no longer be a megalomaniacal lunatic, so being Caliph will be a public service and a burden, rather than an ego-trip.

Sounds like a plan? Just contact me here at kbarrett(at)merr(dot)com and I'll arrange for you to take shahada and begin life as a new Muslim.

Your future brother in Islam and Grand Wazir (insha'allah)

Dr. Kevin Barrett

Mitt Romney: Alien or psychopath?

2012-01-15T19:28:00.000-08:00

When history professor David Jacobs told me last week that the weight of the evidence suggests that human-alien hybrids are among us, my first thought was: That explains Mitt Romney.

Like serial killer Ted Bundy, the all-time quintessential Republican, Mitt Romney is smooth, suave, handsome - like he was cast in plastic, rather than nurtured in a human uterus. There's something inhuman in his voice and facial expressions and the way he moves and handles himself. He reminds me of the androids in Disney World's Hall of Presidents.

If I were asked to distinguish between Romney and a walking, talking android simulacrum of Romney, I would pick the one with more gravitas. That would definitely be the android.

Is Romney a plastic shell, operated in real time by a gray alien equivalent of Karl Rove? Possibly. But it seems far more likely that he is, like Bundy, an inhuman human: one of the 2% of males who are clinical psychopaths.

The theory that Romney (like so many political leaders) is a psychopath got a boost recently from reports of him putting his dog in a cage on his car roof for a 12-hour family trip:

During the trip, the Boston Globe reported, Romney’s oldest son, Tagg, looked around through the rear window and yelled, “Dad — gross!” A brown liquid was dripping down the back window — diarrhea from an animal that just might have been caused by the stress of being inside a cage for 12 hours on top of a car going 60 mph.

And what did Romney do, even after knowing of the dog's diarrhea? Did he realize that perhaps Seamus should be shown some mercy, cleaned up and allowed in the car, to sleep on someone’s lap?

No.

Here’s how the Globe described what Romney then did:

“As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management.”

Emotion-free crisis management: the kind of "right stuff" that allowed Republican archetype Ted Bundy to wash the gore off himself after his serial rape-murders and head right on back to Republican headquarters as if nothing had happened.

It's true that a lot of American business leaders exhibit that kind of "emotion-free crisis management." Robert Hare, the world's leading expert on psychopaths, knows them well. He calls them "Snakes in Suits."

According to psychopathy expert Martha Stout, psychopaths often give themselves away by mistreating their pets. Not necessarily in an aggressive or outlandish fashion; they just fail to exhibit the kind of care that someone with a heart would take for granted. Romney's treatment of his dog would appear to be a classic example.

But what really seals the deal, branding Romney as an almost certain psychopath, is Romney's transparent lack of remorse for the way he treated his dog, his complete lack of empathy for another creature's suffering, his inability to understand that he did anything wrong, and his invention of ridiculous lies in an attempt to cover his tracks.

If today Romney, looking back, were to say, “You know, in retrospect, that was a cruel thing to do to our dog — I was young, it was a long time ago, I am sorry” — if he said that today, I’d forgive him.

But instead — Romney being Romney — he defaults into saying something utterly implausible. He recently told Fox's dog-loving Chris Wallace that Seamus actually loved it up there!

He then told Wallace that the dog was in an "air-tight container," not mentioning the diarrhea.

Psychopaths have a hard time understanding why anyone would object to them torturing a dog - or a human being. So when they're called on it, they offer absurd excuses about how the victim "didn't really mind the torture" or the rape victim "really loved it." Or they invent even more absurd lies, like "the dog was in an air-tight container for twelve hours." An airtight container?! How could the dog breathe? And how did that diarrhea get out of an airtight container to trickle down the rear windshield?!

Lanny Davis, author of the Fox News article I have quoted from at length, ponders Mitt Romney's behavior and concludes that something is not quite right with Romney - that someone with such lack of compassion for his own dog, and the propensity to lie like he breathes, is bad news. What he doesn't seem to realize is that he has just made a very good case that Romney - like so many other leaders - would, if tested, almost certainly score very high on the psychopathy scale.

* * *
For an introduction to the topic of psychopaths in power, check out my article Twilight of the Psychopaths.

2012 is here, moral pole shift underway

2012-01-13T19:59:00.000-08:00

"The Earth's magnetic field, our primary defense against harmful solar radiation, has begun to dwindle, with California-sized cracks opening up randomly. A pole shift, in which such protection falls nearly to zero as the North and South magnetic poles reverse position, may well be under way." - Lawrence E. Joseph, Apocalypse 2012: An Investigation into Civilization's End.

I'm not an end-of-the-worlder. I'm not a gloom-and-doomer.

But after a week of US Marines urinating on corpses, Republican candidates cheering the murders of Iranian scientists, and US officials all but admitting that the real reason for hostilities with Iran is that Iran is one of the last countries on earth with a non-Rothschild central bank...in other words, that Americans are being frog-marched into World War III by Rothschild satanists in order to create a Jerusalem-based global bankster dictatorship...well, I'm starting to believe in this pole-shift thing.

Americans have obviously lost their moral compass. The poles of morality - good and evil - are switching places.

Americans are taking evil as their good. And the good - for example, people in Afghanistan and Iran defending their country and their religion from satanic foreign invasion - appears to them as evil.

Here is a picture of a good man, a good citizen, and a good father. His name was Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan. His job involved building nuclear power plants so that his country will survive when its oil runs out - probably in no more than a decade or two.

He was blown to bits by a psychotic killer from a psychotic killer state. The psychotic killer state says Mostafa's crime was working on a technology that might one day enable Mostafa's country to build nuclear weapons - which the psychotic killer state already possesses in abundance.

You don't need much of a moral compass to see who is good and innocent and honest, and who is evil and hypocritical and guilty, in this situation. Yet Americans allow their politicians to openly call for, and gloat over, the murder of good by evil.

As the moral pole shift continues to build in intensity, expect to see Republican presidential candidates knocking each other over as they scramble to be the first to kiss the sulphorous arse of Satan. Expect to see them demanding that the Nuremburg laws of war be re-written so that defending ones country from invasion is the supreme war crime, while aggression is a universal right. Expect to see them running ads vaunting their status as clients of child prostitution services, each claiming to best their fellow candidates in pederasty. Expect to see them calling press conferences at which they wallow naked in swimming pools full of raw sewage and bribe money. Expect to see them expressing their support for the US military's legalization of bestiality by buggering donkeys in front of cheering platoons of flag-waving servicemen. Expect to see them not just calling for torture, but actually demonstrating their love of torture on live TV by gleefully extracting the fingernails of randomly selected victims. Expect them to demonstrate how "enemy combatants" should be extra-judicially executed, by kidnapping their rivals' staffers and personally snuffing them in front of cheering, banner-waving throngs. Expect to see their support for indefinite military detention expand into support for death camps for Democrats, Independents, and Ron Paul voters. Expect to see them not only defending troops who urinate on fallen martyrs, but demanding that the troops be required to defecate on them as well - then wipe with the flag, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Expect to see them openly calling for World War III, and promising that, if elected, they will push the button faster and harder than their rivals.

America's moral pole shift would beggar the imagination of St. John the Revelator.

Big media's attempt to verbally assassinate Ron Paul is indefensible

2012-01-12T09:50:00.000-08:00

Henry Blodget of Business Insider claims he "told the truth about Ron Paul" when he said the media is right to ignore or disparage Dr. Paul, because Dr. Paul's ideas are non-mainstream, which makes the good Doctor unelectable. He is running a selection of emails he got in response. Unfortunately none of them succeeds in showing how ridiculous Blodget's position actually is. So here goes:

Dear Henry Blodget,

You argue that the media has every right to ignore and/or disparage Ron Paul, because Paul's positions are "non-mainstream" which makes him unelectable.

Your central premise is not just faulty, but absurd. Is it really the media's business to determine what is "mainstream," and to censor or attack anything that is not? What objective evidence determines what is "mainstream"? Public opinion polls? If so, why does the media label "mainstream" the 16% of Americans who believe the government is telling the truth about 9/11, while consigning the 84% who have doubts to the margins? (source) Obviously the media has created - not reported - the perception that 9/11 truth is "fringe" while acceptance of the official story of 9/11 is "mainstream."

The same is even more true of Ron Paul's foreign policy. Dr. Paul's thesis is that the US should defend its borders, not police the world. This has been the mainstream position of the vast majority of Americans since the founding of the Republic. A tiny activist minority has labeled the majority opinion "isolationist," and worked hard to create the perception that the minority of activists (or, to put it less kindly, warmongers) represent mainstream opinion, while the vast majority who are "isolationists" are somehow on the fringe. This mendacious project recalls the way the Bolsheviks, when they were a fringe minority, usurped the term for "majority party." The difference is that the Bolsheviks really did become the majority party, whereas the war party in the US has always been a tiny minority that can only get its way by telling lies to the majority. (Such lies include Pearl Harbor - google "eight-point plan" - as well as Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Kuwait baby incubator hoax, 9/11, and so on.)*

Given the above, I am sure you will admit that the notion of what is "mainstream" has little to do with majority opinion. What, then, are the relevant criteria? I challenge you to produce a method, based on marshaling objective evidence, that can separate "mainstream" from "fringe" positions. Remember, there are literally thousands of issues out there; and the way each issue is framed, as well as the relative importance of each issue, is a subjective matter that varies wildly from person to person.

If you cannot produce an objective, fact-based method to determine what is "mainstream" - and I am certain that you cannot - perhaps you will admit that the media's job is to report honestly, with fairness and balance. Specifically, in covering the election process, big media should treat all candidates equally. If candidate W is getting X percentage of votes, winning Y number of delegates, raising Z amounts of money, competing in Q number of states, etc., that candidate should be taken equally seriously as a contender based on these tangible criteria. To the extent that the candidates' ideas are considered - a very small extent in current practice - they ought to be considered fair-mindedly, carefully and in scrupulous detail.

If the media were reporting responsibly, Paul and Romney would nearly be in a dead heat; and Paul would wear the "over-achieving underdog" mantle and be in a commanding position to win the nomination. After all, Paul won more Iowa delegates than Romney, is ahead of everybody but Romney in fund-raising, delegates, and votes, and most importantly has essentially taken over the Republican Party at the grassroots level across the nation. Finally, Dr. Paul is the only candidate with ideas that really are ideas, whether or not one agrees with them. (I personally agree with his foreign policy, but not his domestic policy.) The other candidates, by contrast, are dishing out pablum without any real substance.

The media's attempt to destroy Dr. Paul's candidacy, allegedly because it has some magical ability to determine what is "mainstream," is so absurd that it raises the question: What is the real reason behind the smokescreen? I submit that the answer is obvious: The media is essentially owned and run by three overlapping special-interest groups: The Zionists, the military-industrial complex, and the big bankers who profit from massive military-spending-induced deficits. Each of these three groups would see its pet project, and its power, collapse if Paul's utterly mainstream foreign policy were ever implemented. That is why the media is trying to verbally assassinate Dr. Paul, while lying about its reasons for doing so.

Please consider the possibility that you have been thoughtlessly repeating a lie.

And if you disagree, please explain, with a reasonable degree of specificity, what objective criteria lie behind the "mainstream" shibboleth.

Best

Dr. Kevin Barrett

* If you somehow believe that there is a real "extremist Muslim terror threat" out there, please provide your snailmail address and I will send you a free copy of my book Questioning the War on Terror, which proves the contrary.

A paranoid little ditty in honor of David Jacobs

2012-01-11T07:44:00.000-08:00

Later today, I will be interviewing Temple University history professor David Jacobs, whose research has convinced him that large numbers of humans are being victimized by a vast breeding experiment overseen by an alien race known as "The Grays." (Listen live, 4 to 5 Central, on www.AmericanFreedomRadio.com )

I find this notion simultaneously terrifying and hilarious. (Like David Icke's notion that the Queen of England is a bloodsucking lizard from outer space.) A cursory review of Dr. Jacobs' work, and conversations with a couple of paranoid friends, inspired me to write yet another song, hot on the heels of the Cass Sunstein parody. Et voila:

Ucking Fay With Oo-yay

They're big bloodsucking lizards
Crawled down from outer space
All the way from Orion
To put you in your place

They're psychopathic monsters
Inbred for generations
And now they're targeting your ass
With covert operations

Ch:
They're ucking fay with oo-yay
They're ucking fay with oo
They're ucking fay with oo-yay
That's just what those bucking fastards do

They've bought up all the newspapers
And television too
Their robot insects carry cameras
And they're pointing them at you

They spread engineered diseases
And pour chemtrails in the skies
They're the ones who print the money
They're the ones who spread the lies

Ch:
They're ucking fay with oo-yay
They're ucking fay with oo
They're ucking fay with oo-yay
That's just what those bucking fastards do

They're working closely with the grays
On alien abductions
They'll mate you with gray goo-goo girls
Who stage snake-charm seductions

They give the New World Orders
And you'd better just obey
Because refusing to believe
Won't make it go away

Ch:
They're ucking fay with oo-yay
They're ucking fay with oo
They're ucking fay with oo-yay
That's just what those bucking fastards do

Their psychotronic weapons
Will put you in their mood
When the anal probe is over
You'll know damn well you've been screwed

Took your money and your freedom
Now they want your heart and mind
Stole your reproductive organs
With their genome you're entwined

Ch:
They're ucking fay with oo-yay
They're ucking fay with oo
They're ucking fay with oo-yay
That's just what those bucking fastards do

They're Rothschild reptile saucer men
From Area 51
Hitching rides on souped-up saucers
Won't be your idea of fun

They'll strap you to a gurney
And pinch poke squeeze and jab
Stealing reproductive juices
To breed hybrids in their lab

Ch:
They're ucking fay with oo-yay
They're ucking fay with oo
They're ucking fay with oo-yay
That's just what those bucking fastards do

Now their hybrids walk among us
Stealthily, still undetected
Their presence and their purpose
By the masses unsuspected

They've seized key nodes of power
Using trickery and force
I think it's safe to say
The human race has run its course

Ch:
They're ucking fay with oo-yay
They're ucking fay with oo
They're ucking fay with oo-yay
That's just what those bucking fastards do

There's just one way to stop them
(I heard it from an old Jew)
The thing is, here's the catch:
They'd have to kill you if I told you

So try to freeze them on an ice rink
Or play Slim Whitman tunes
You just might find the secret weapon -
But you'd better find it soon!

They're ucking fay with oo-yay
They're ucking fay with oo
They're ucking fay with oo-yay
That's just what those bucking fastards do

PROPAGANDA SCHEMING by Mama Cass Sunstein

2012-01-09T18:11:00.000-08:00

Propaganda Scheming by "Mama Cass" Sunstein

All the lies are going down
Zion's sky is gray
9/11 truth
Just might win the day
I'm dreaming up a scheme
To make those truthers pay
Propaganda scheming
There's got to be a way!

I stopped into a White House
I passed along the way
Walked up to the President
And I began to say
"Those conspiracy theories
Are ruining my day
We need some propaganda scheming
To make them go away!"

Then I told the President
Our nation's gone astray
And I got down on my knees
And I began to pray
"Oh Lord, send us a law
To make those truthers pay
A tax on their conspiracy theories
And make them go away!

(Or send them off to jail,
Just make them go away!)

"The government should disable
Those who would purvey
Conspiracy theories
And infiltrate their brains (INFILTRATE THEIR BRAINS!)
Cognitive infiltration
Is the only way
For our propaganda scheming
To make them go away!"

The President looked at me
And he began to say
"What the hell are you talking about Sunstein
Are you feeling okay?"
So I fled the White House
And called up Jonathan Kay
And we did our propaganda scheming
For the rest of the day (and week and month and year) (and decade and century and millennium)

Alan Hart: "The Zionization of American politics and how it could be terminated"

2012-01-09T08:50:00.000-08:00

This just in today from former lead BBC Mideast correspondent Alan Hart, who will join me on the radio today, Monday 1/9/12, 3 to 4 pm Central. Listen live at http://www.AmericanFreedomRadio.com.
-KB

The Zionization of American politics and how it could be terminated

By Alan Hart

The first headline I thought of for this article was The Zionization of American democracy and how it could be terminated, but then I said to myself: “Don’t be silly, Alan, there’s no democracy in the ‘Land of the Free.’”

Leaving aside the fact that any American can now be arrested and detained without due process, there’s no mystery about why.

There’s much more to democracy than voting every few years for the lesser of two or three evils or in America’s case naked political whores (with the exception among the would-be Republican presidents of Ron Paul).

A truth is that for democracy to exist, the voters have to be informed enough about critical issues in order to participate in, or at least follow, debate about policy options and choices and call and hold their politicians to account, between elections if necessary. On that basis I know of no country in the world where democracy exists.

In the so-called democratic or what used to be called the “Free World” we have the framework for democracy but not the substance. When I joined ITN as a very young reporter very many years ago, its great editor-in-chief, Geoffrey Cox, gave me the mission statement in one short sentence. “Our job is to help keep democracy alive.” Today I charge the mainstream media with betraying democracy. So I say thanks for the internet, warts and all. (The jury is still out on how far it will be allowed to propel Arab demands for democracy but it might assist Russians to prevent a return to Stalinism under Mr Putin and his state Mafia).

A truth about America is that what passes for democracy there is for sale to the highest lobby bidders, not only (I must emphasize) the Zionist lobby in all of its manifestations.

On 9 December, quoting the latest findings of Public Campaign, a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to “sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics,” International Business Times reported this amazing fact. “By employing a plethora of tax-dodging techniques, 30 multi-million dollar American corporations expended more money lobbying Congress than they paid in federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010, ultimately spending approximately $400,000 every day - including weekends - during that three-year period to lobby lawmakers and influence political elections.”

But that’s not all. Citizens for Tax Justice, the sister organization to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, reported that 68 of the 265 most consistently profitable Fortune 500 companies did not pay a state corporate income tax during at least one year between 2008 and 2010, while 20 of them paid no taxes at all during that period.

Apart from the occupant of the White House and those who advise him, probably nobody really knows which are the most influential lobbies in America, but a list of the top ten as compiled by the Business Pundit web site made a lot of sense to me. The following are the ten, not necessarily in order of actual influence wielded.

“The Defense Industry” or, as named by President Eisenhower when he warned his fellow Americans to be on their guard and not let it call the policy shots to secure a disproportionate amount of taxpayers’ money, the Military Industrial Complex. It needs conflict and war in order to be able to quench its thirst for taxpayers’ dollars and sustain its position as the biggest creator of jobs and wealth. (According to a recent report in The Economist, the U.S. Department of Defense is the biggest employer in the world with 3.2 million on its payroll, ahead of China’s army with 2.3 million). The heaviest hitters in the defense industry are Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Dynamics.

“Big Oil” which is said to spend more on lobbying than any other single special interest group - nearly $150 million in 2010.

“The Financial Lobby” which in its various manifestations - banks and other financial institutions - is by far the biggest spender on Capitol Hill, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to campaigns and political parties. (In return, and as noted by Business Pundit, financial institutions are allowed free reign with other people’s money. A senate committee on the financial crisis of the late 2000’s found that, “The crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.”)

“Big Pharma”. Along with the financial lobbies, the pharmaceutical and health products industries have historically been one of the biggest and most powerful lobbies in Washington. Drug companies enjoy more power and influence in America than with any other government in the world.

“The Agribusiness Industry” which represents a diverse collection of special interest groups including large food manufacturers like Kraft and Uniliver, huge agricultural companies like Monsanto, tobacco companies such as Phillip Morris, biofuel producers like UNICA, and logging companies like International Paper and Weyerhauser. These companies spend upwards of $150 million each year, funding campaigns and pushing legislation through Congress or blocking it.

“The Tech Lobby” which includes the economic fire power of Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft.

“The Mining Industry”. This lobby, particularly the coal industry, has had its fingers in American politics for a long time. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was responsible for some of the most dramatic labor uprisings in history. In the last three years, in the face skepticism on the part of environmental advocacy groups, it spent nearly $100 million on seeking to persuade politicians that “clean coal” really will make a major contribution to averting an energy supply crisis.

“The NRA” (National Rifle Association). It has been one of the most consistently influential political lobbies in American politics for the past 30 years. Its power is less in money and more its ability to mobilize its members. It puts major effort into opposing candidates who advocate gun control. (Al Gore, for example, lost the 2000 election in his own home state of Tennessee primarily because of his pro gun-control stance).

“The AARP” (American Association of Retired Persons). It is an NGO and special interest group for people aged 50 and over and one of the largest lobbying groups in Washington.

“The Pro-Israel Lobby” which is more accurately described as the Zionist Lobby. As my regular readers know, I insist that it’s wrong to call this lobby pro-Israel because to do so implies that it speaks for all Israeli Jews and it does not. Headed by AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) which speaks for not more than about 25% of Jewish Americans, it has been called the NRA of foreign policy lobbies because of its ability to make or break politicians including presidents.

The statement that best sums up for me the consequences of all this financial fire power on America’s political system was the one made by the man I would like to see as America’s next president - Rocky Anderson. Who is he?

On Monday 19 December, at a press conference in Washington D.C., he announced the creation of a new third party, the Justice Party, and his intention to run for the presidency under its banner.

Just turned 60, Rocky Anderson, a former two-term mayor of Utah’s Salt Lake City, has an impressive record of service to what could be called the public good on many fronts. For reasons of space I have to ask readers who want to know more about him to take a look at his Wikipedia entry.

On 11 August last year he denounced the Democratic Party and resigned his membership of it. In his letter to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he said: “Until the Democratic Party shows some spine and draws a line in the sand - that an end to the tax breaks for the wealthy needs to be part of any debt/budget bill - please take my name off your list... I'm done with the Democratic Party. As I said on Amy Goodman's show a couple years ago, I've put my proud Democrat coffee mug in storage. I think now I'll just throw it in the garbage and have done with it... The Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party.”

I was inspired by Amy Goodman’s interview with Anderson for Open Democracy very shortly after his announcement of the formation of the Justice Party.

The great thing about television is that it gives viewers the opportunity not only to listen to what speakers are saying but also to study their body language as they are speaking and listening to the questions. In other words, television gives viewers the opportunity to ask and answer an important question - Do I believe this guy or gal? With Tony Blair, for example, my answer was always “No”. And I regret to say it has become “No” when I listen to President Obama and watch his body language. Anderson’s body language told me he is a man I can believe and that makes what he had to say more than important - even though he has no chance of becoming president in 2013. (After that...?)

Here is what he said in answer to one of Goodman’s questions.

“We launched the Justice Party because the entire system is so corrupt. It's so diseased. We know that the public interest is not being served by anyone in the system right now, particularly the two dominant parties who have sustained this corrupt system and who are sustained by it... Obama received more money from Wall Street than any presidential candidate ever. And they got a great return on their investment... We need people in public office who are pledged not to just represent the people's interest in the same system, but to change the system and get the corrupting influence of corporate and other concentrated wealth out of our electoral system and out of our system of governance.”

Common sense says that the only way to end the financial corruption of American politics is by the people, the voters, demanding that it be ended.

A real clean-up would require legislation giving effect to the proposition that all elections will be funded by only one source - public money raised from taxation, with the revenue ring-fenced so that it could only be used for elections. There are about 100 million voters in America and ten dollars added each year to their tax bill would provide enough money for all election funding. Ten dollars a year is surely a very small price for each voter to pay for something approaching real democracy.

Given that Congress’s approval rating is closer to 10 percent than 20 percent according to the latest polls, organizing a rolling and rising tide of people power to demand the necessary constitutional amendment or amendments to get the corrupting influence of lobby funding out of the electoral system ought not to be a mission impossible.

In other words, if enough American voters were aware of how corrupt their political system actually is, and if then they cared enough, they could cause the corruption to be terminated. What a demonstration of real democracy in action that would be!

In an opinion piece for The Electronic Intifada on 27 December, Ilan Pappe wrote the following.

“If we had a wish list for 2012 as Palestinians and friends of Palestine, one of the top items ought to be our hope that we can translate the dramatic shift in recent years in world public opinion into political action against Israeli policies on the ground... We know why this has not yet materialized: the political, intellectual and cultural elites of the West cower (crouch or cringe in fear) whenever they even contemplate acting according to their own consciences as well as the wishes of their societies. This last year was particularly illuminating for me in that respect. I encountered that timidity at every station in the many trips I took for the cause I believe in. And these personal experiences were accentuated by the more general examples of how governments and institutions caved in under intimidation from Israel and pro-Zionist Jewish organizations.”

In America Zionist intimidation which causes the “caving in” manifests itself in two ways.

One is funding for election campaigns and the threat, actually the promise, not only to deny funding to candidates who won’t commit to toeing Zionism’s line but to fund their opponents.

The other is delivery of Zionist lobby organized Jewish votes in close election races. (In a few states that are home to large Jewish populations - New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Florida - the Jewish vote can be decisive).

Once upon a time, when most Jewish Americans voted for Democratic Party candidates, Republicans running for office did not bother to grovel for Jewish campaign funds and votes. An indicator of how times are changing is that in the current race for the White House, and with the exception of Ron Paul, Republican candidates are grovelling for Jewish campaign funds and votes as much if not more than Obama. In that context it can be said that the Zionization of American politics has been completed.

Can it ever be ended? Yes if enough Americans insist that their politicians be accountable to those who elect them and not the big money special interest lobbies.

At the time of writing the signs are that Obama will get a second term by default, this because no Republican challenger is credible to enough Americans. If that is the outcome of November’s election, probably a majority of Americans will be very far from happy with the way their electoral system operates; and that discontent might just be enough to cause them to demand an end to the corruption of the lobby system.

My hope for 2013 and beyond is that they will. (Could it be that Rocky Anderson’s time will come?)

In which I call for the Taliban to invade Europe

2012-01-06T17:22:00.000-08:00

An open letter to Mullah Omar

Dear Mullah Omar,

As-salaamu alaikum and a top o' the marnin' to ye!

(That's a traditional Irish Muslim greeting - I don't imagine you use it much in Afghanistan.)

Anyway, I thought I'd write to ask how you were getting along, and whether you might be able to take some time off from your busy jihad-ing in Afghanistan to invade, occupy, and liberate Europe.

Europe needs liberating a lot more than Afghanistan ever did. Here are some of the reasons:

*Europe is a failed state. The Euro is crashing and the EU will soon follow. If Europe breaks up into a bunch of feuding mini-states, it could cause serious global instability - possibly even a world war. In fact, I think I remember that already happening once or twice.

*Europe is harboring terrorists. The US-NATO high command that slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians during Operation Gladio is still at large, protected by European governments. And let's not forget the terrorists who've been conspiring to bomb innocent countries including Iraq, Libya, Palestine, and your own Afghanistan.

*Europe is consuming large amounts of heroin, thereby subsidizing the criminals in Afghanistan who grow it. As part of the Taliban's "war on drugs," why not cut the problem off at the source - the demand side - by taking over Europe and putting an end to drug abuse, in the same way you so successfully put an end to opium production right before you got invaded?

*And, most important of all, you need to liberate European women from the forced prostitution of the "free market." Take a look at this story from today's London Telegraph:

'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'

By Clare Chapman

12:01AM GMT 30 Jan 2005

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year... (FULL STORY)

The so-called "women's liberation" movement, invented by the Rockefellers as a means of destroying the family, has reached its apotheosis in Germany; just as the "sexual revolution" has reached its apotheosis in the new US military code legalizing bestiality.

Obviously you "radical Muslim fundamentalists" who've been ranting about Western decadence are guilty of serious understatement. To atone for all those years of understatement, please invade us, occupy us, and liberate us. Get our women out of the whorehouses of the "free market" and back into the protective embraces of their homes and families.

I know some will argue that invading someone else's country to force your ways on them isn't right. But since the West did it to you first - many times, in fact - I'd say you owe us one.

In eager anticipation of your forthcoming invasion, occupation, and liberation

I remain, yrs truly

Dr. Kevin Barrett

Senate declares US bestial military dictatorship

2012-01-01T18:41:00.000-08:00

2012 is shaping up to be a heck of a year for the military.

On December 31, 2011, Obama signed the NDAA, codifying into law for the first time in American history that the military can imprison citizens or non-citizens indefinitely, inside or outside the United States, without charges or trial. (Source: American Civil Liberties Union)

This obscene bill was the work of the US Senate. Every Senator who voted for it needs to be tried for treason, convicted, and hanged by the neck until dead. The President who signed it, with reservations, should get off with a lighter sentence. Like maybe a firing squad - or if we're feeling really merciful, a lethal injection.

But until that happens, I figure I'll just make the best of the situation. A couple of weeks ago, as my readers know, I turned myself in for indefinite military detention. I figured it would be kind of cool to have a Marine Corps marching band playing "Halls of Montezuma" as they kicked in my door and dragged me off to a sparkly-new Haliburton detention camp.

But now I'm rescinding my offer. In another email to DHS,* I have explained why: I don't want to be indefinitely detained by a bunch of sheep-schtuppers.

For the Senate, in its infinite wisdom, not only has unleashed the military against dissidents - but also against household pets:

Senate Repeals Bans on Sodomy and Bestiality in the Military
The U.S. Senate voted Thursday to approve a defense authorization bill which included a provision that not only repealed the military ban on sodomy, but also repealed the ban on having sex with animals — or bestiality.

I wonder which Senator wrote that part of the bill.

I wonder what kind of blackmail videos the Mossad has on that Senator.

I wonder whether that Senator's preference is for birds, mammals, amphibians, insects, or reptiles. (My guess would be reptiles...with giant cockroaches a close second.)

I realize the US Senate is full of the sickest and most corrupt people on God's green earth. I realize these guys wallow with pigs and other less hygienic creatures on a daily basis. I'm a tolerant guy - I don't waste my time worrying about who's screwing who, or what.

But when US Senators decide to enforce their predilection for having sex with animals on our brave men and women in uniform, that's where I draw the line.

When the US Senate sends the military into the US heartland to "disappear" citizens into concentration camps - AND WHILE THEY'RE AT IT, TO RAPE OUR HOUSEHOLD PETS, and for all we know the rabbits and squirrels and other innocent animals in our neighborhoods - I say it's time to rise up in revolt.

So I have rescinded my offer to be indefinitely detained. And I have informed DHS that I will be purchasing the highest-power weapons legally available, stocking up on ammunition, and getting ready to defend the dogs and cats and rabbits and squirrels of my neighborhood against the threat of rape by uniformed perverts sent by the traitors in the Senate.

Though frankly, I'd rather use my guns on those treasonous, animal-raping Senators.

So listen up, Senators: If I ever catch any one of you in the act of screwing a helpless, innocent animal, I'll blow your filthy head clean off.

And as for that little matter of treason...well, we'll deal with that when the time comes.

* * *

The letter below was sent to the Department of Homeland Security via the form at http://www.dhs.gov/xutil/contactus.shtm

Dear DHS,

I am hereby rescinding my offer to be indefinitely detained by the US military under NDAA. While it is one thing for US troops to violate their oaths to the Constitution by disappearing US citizens without charges, it is quite another thing if the troops in question are serial animal rapists (like the Senators who voted for NDAA).

I do not wish to be indefinitely detained by people who have sex with pigs, monkeys, monitor lizards, giant cockroaches, or other animals.

If you have already sent a Marine platoon full of perverts to detain me, please contact them immediately and rescind my detention orders.

Sincerely,

Dr. Kevin Barrett

PS I understand that you bloodsucking imbeciles and parasites at DHS probably also screw animals, having nothing else to do all day, given that 9/11 was an inside job and the "terror threat" is so statistically insignificant as to be meaningless. If so, I urge you to put down that tortoise, think hard about what you are doing, and consider resigning and getting a real job.

If Herb Caen, I can too

2011-12-30T17:50:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2011-12-26T09:56:00.000-08:00

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:

Jon,

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

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

2011-12-23T08:46:00.000-08:00

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.

Jon,

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."

Best

Kevin

Islam and liberty: Contradictory or complementary?

2011-12-21T11:09:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2011-12-16T15:21:00.000-08:00

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.

In which I turn myself in for Indefinite Military Detention

2011-12-13T08:47:00.000-08:00

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.

Sincerely,

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.