Home My Profile Truth Blog My Messages (0 ) Logout


Interview with Algerian journalist

On 2016-02-23 17:37:09, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]

1. You are a great American thinker converted to Islam, how do you live your faith in the US?

?Great?? I?m not sure about that, and don?t expect to see my bust on Mount Rushmore any time soon.
Anyway...Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the US. But today, American Muslims are on the defensive. Neoconservative Zionists have orchestrated a huge, well-funded propaganda war on Islam, and they have succeeded in spreading Islamophobia. Today it is harder to ?live your faith? in public than it was in the 1990s. (I reverted to Islam in 1993).
At the personal level, time pressures of the American lifestyle, and Americans? lack of understanding, make it somewhat more difficult to pray salaat on time and fast during Ramadan than it is in Islamic countries. American Muslims have to put more effort into it, and it becomes a more serious test (imtihan). I have lived in Morocco, where it is relatively easy to pray each time you hear the adhan, and to fast along with everyone else. In the US, you have to pay more attention to the prayer times, find a way to make time for salaat even when those around you are all pressuring you to keep busy. And you have to struggle against public pressure, rather than go along with it, when you fast.
It has become easier for me to practice since I moved out of the city and became self-employed. My wife, two sons, and I all pray the five daily prayers, fast together during Ramadan, pray jumuah in our small log cabin mosque in the woods, and experience relatively little exposure to alcohol and other haram behaviors. But I don?t want to completely cut myself off from socializing with my neighbors, all of whom are non-Muslim. So I watch sporting events with them in the local tavern, ordering non-alcoholic beverages (including the ?Virgin Mary,? which they think is a funny name for a Muslim?s favorite drink?until I explain that Muslims revere Mary the mother of Isa just as much as Christians do). I know some Muslims would say I should stay away from taverns, period. That would definitely be true if I still had any desire for alcohol. But I don?t, alhamdullilah; my body now instinctively recognizes that it is poison. So I think it?s better to be a friendly, non-threatening neighbor and participate in local socializing and give a good impression of Islam, than to withdraw completely from everyone around me. In the long run, I think Islam will grow and become a much more prominent part of America - perhaps eventually the number one religion in America - if we engage with our neighbors, find common ground with them, and communicate with them in a positive, friendly, reasonably non-judgmental way.

2. All the information collected near various sources leads us to the United States concerning the creation of Daesh, as it was the case with Al-Qaeda, according to the confession of Mrs. Clinton herself; if the empire destroys us with a Wahhabit, salafist, doctrine, what do we make, us, the Muslims, to protect us from conspiracies of empire?

I think the Empire has been encouraging the Wahhabi and extreme-Salafist versions of Islam because those approaches actually tend to undermine Islam, in two ways: First, Wahhabism operates as a kind of neo-Khawarij school that spends most of its energy fighting other Muslims and spreading fitna within the Ummah; and second, Wahhabi-takfiri approaches to Islam tend to be rigid, ultra-puritanical, and obscurantist, and therefore alienating to a great many people (both Muslim and non-Muslim) and ill-suited to thriving and spreading in today?s world. As Muslims we need to recognize this, and find a way to neutralize these tendencies. We need to educate young people, and re-educate those who have been misled. And we might also consider trying to turn salafism in a better (or at least less dangerous) direction. The basic concept of salafism, in my opinion, is not inherently toxic. Even though I don?t identify with it personally, the idea of focusing directly on Qur?an and sunna rather than adhering to a single law school is not necessarily unreasonable in itself. It only becomes unreasonable when it is practiced from an extremist, obscurantist or takfiri perspective. So maybe we need to offer encouragement to the ?reasonable salafis? and engage with them. I know such people exist, because I have met several of them.

3. You sent me a video of one of your debates where you mentioned the thought of Mohamed Arkoun, an Algerian thinker and not Moroccan, have you met the thought of Malek Bennabi that shone throughout the Muslim world?

Yes, I have read him, though not extensively, and have great respect for him. In particular, I think he is right about the need for an intellectual renaissance of ideas, not just material progress. This insight illustrates why the obscurantism of the takfiris is so dangerous and destructive. Bennabi is one of the key thinkers of the Islamic Revival and I look forward to reading more of his work insha?allah.

4. Why, in the Muslim world, did we move away from the thought of Malek Bennabi to freeze in the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabit, salafist, matrix of the Gulf's Bedouins which plunged us into the darkness of Daesh?

That is a very good question. I think the short answer is that the Gulf Bedouins have so much oil money, and so much backing from the Empire, that they have been able to mentally colonize much of the Islamic world.

5. Why did we let the imperialism play with our Sunni-Shiite splits, etc. and transform the Muslim ground into play-station where multinationals plunder our wealth? Is the external enemy alone guilty? Why didn't we built strong States with strong institutions which immunize us of imperialism?

Today?s world, with its frenetic economic activity, spiritual emptiness, and idolatry of nation-states, is not ideally suited for a powerful state-building Islam. Dajjal has been out of the bottle for 500 years, so the tools of power in the modern world - usury, Machievellian big lies and amorality, techno-warfare that is inherently a form of terrorism, worship of the State and its rulers rather than God, and so on - are tools that devout Muslims cannot use. These shaitani tools of power are all social cancers that have created an unhealthy explosion of economic, technological and population growth that becomes less and less sustainable the bigger it gets. So I tend to agree with Shaykh Imran Hosein, who is skeptical about possibilities for strong ?Islamic states? today. But despite this bleak situation, we have seen a resurgence of Islam among the people, and some successes with Islamic-state-building in Iran (and perhaps some smaller successes elsewhere). I think we should remember to celebrate the positive side, especially the resilience of Islam in a modern world overrun by dajjal, rather than just feeling bad about not having powerful states like the shaitani ones that dominate today?s ever-more-corrupt dunya.

6. In the very interesting video which you sent me with the intervention of professor Anthony J. Hall, I found that there is a great similarity in the extermination of the indigenous peoples of America by British colonists and French colonialism who has exterminated by mass the Algerian people with the same processes. Don?t you think that the American Empire is in the historical continuity of its British and French predecessors?

Absolutely. As Shaykh Imran Hosein says, the British Empire gave way to the American Empire in the 20th century; then the Zionist Empire took over from the American Empire in the coup d??tat of September 11th, 2001. All three Empires have exterminated indigenous people in similar ways. (As the French did in Algeria and elsewhere.)

7. You worked on 9/11, the stay behind and Gladio operations, Charlie Hebdo, etc. and the concept of false flag, without alternative media and with only the mass media like CNN in which you are already intervened, would we have known the truth, or at least a part of the truth about what really happened?

The truth about ?deep events? has been largely banned from US mainstream media for many decades. For example, the American people were not told about the coup d??tat against President Roosevelt in the 1930s that was planned by America?s richest families and exposed by Gen. Smedley Butler. They only learned the truth about the 1963 JFK assassination by reading underground newspapers and magazines (such as the work of investigative journalist Warren Hinckle published in Ramparts magazine). And today, they can only learn the truth about 9/11, Operation Gladio, Charlie Hebdo and so on from the internet-based alternative media. Unfortunately, many Americans have been brainwashed to see the alternative media as less prestigious than the mainstream media. I have tried to help solve this problem by finding strategies for getting truthful information into the mainstream (such as provoking the mainstream coverage I got in 2006). And I also try to get truthful information published in books, such as We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo and ANOTHER French False Flag, in order to put the truth in a more authoritative, respectable, reasonably scholarly package.
8. The history of humanity is made of plots and conspiracies, how do you explain that the empire and its watchdogs have the vital need to label people who propose another vision of some major events by calling them conspiracy theorists and other derogatory terms?

The CIA launched the term ?conspiracy theorist? in the 1960s with its Directive 1035-60, a memo to its mainstream media assets telling them to pejoratively label people who questioned the official version of the JFK assassination with this term. Since then, this ?weaponized term? has become one of the Empire?s most powerful weapons against the truth. Whenever the Empire?s rulers are about to be exposed for committing a crime that their people would not tolerate, the rulers demonize the truth-tellers as ?conspiracy theorists.? So the correct definition of ?conspiracy theory? is ?a truth that would, if it were exposed in a timely way, radically change the world."

9. How do you explain the need for US imperialism to always designate an enemy and to condition its population to live in fear?

I think this is a universal human trait, not just an American one. Ren? Girard, one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century, showed how scapegoating an ?enemy? is the most basic way that societies ward off fitna and hold themselves together. And Karl Schmitt, the most influential political philosopher of the 20th century, argued that this kind of scapegoating enemies is the essence of politics. But the US does it more obviously and destructively than any other nation today except Israel. Why? Perhaps it is because the US was built on scapegoating and exterminating Native Americans, and scapegoating and enslaving or impoverishing African-Americans. Professor Anthony Hall has made this argument in his Bowl with One Spoon books. Additionally, the US has been a powerful and (until recently) growing empire, with no actual enemies capable of harming it, so it has had to work unusually hard to invent imaginary enemies.

10. When we see the ideological matrix of Al-Qaeda or Daesh, which are branches of imperialism, can we assume that the monster will eventually turn against its creator? Does the US imperialism still have control on the hordes of islamist fascists?

I agree with Shaykh Imran Hosein that there may be enough brainwashed young people joining takfiri groups so that the Empire will not, in the future, have to employ professional Special Forces type killers in its false flag events, but will be able to use actual takfiris to do the killing. In this sense the ?monster will turn against its creator.? But whether Daesh or al-Qaeda will ever be able to inflict damage on the Empire that the Empire does not welcome is another question. Given the ?progress? in WMD technology, such a prospect cannot be ruled out.
11. With the horrors experienced daily by the Muslim world and the bloodshed that never ends, can we still dream of Al-Andalus (Andalusia)?

After the current age of all-devouring riba, strife, out-of-control technology, and ecological disaster ends (or preferably ?settles down?) we may get much closer to a new golden age along the lines of al-Andalus. By working toward that goal today, ?persisting in truth, patiently persisting? we can at least know that we are doing our best in the eyes of God, the only gaze of the Other that matters. So whether or not we reach al-Andalus in this lifetime we will have an interesting journey and, insha?allah, a taste of al-nafs al-mutmainnah, the soul at peace.

Letter to the Islamic Post www.islamicpostonline.com

On 2016-02-04 15:13:12, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]

Dear Islamic Post

As-salaamu alaikum

An Islamic activist friend of mine who occasionally gives me piles of your newspaper to distribute recently dropped off some copies of your January Volume 1 issue, with the front page headline CELEBRATING AND PROTECTING AMERICA?S TRADITION OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM. It?s an excellent headline, and the story (like most of your work) was also very good.

But then I looked at the editorial page, where a truly terrible headline screamed out: FALSE PRETENSES: SHIITE AND WAHHABIS ARE NOT FOLLOWERS OF ISLAM. Audhu billah! The editorialist is pronouncing takfir on hundreds of millions of people who sincerely pronounce the shahada!

The consensus of Islamic scholars, whether Sunni, Shia, Sufi or Salafi, is that anyone who sincerely pronounces shahada is a Muslim, i.e. a follower of Islam. Some may be bad Muslims. Some may commit un-Islamic acts. Some may have adopted a misguided view of Islam based on wrong teachings. Some may even be total hypocrites who took their shahada as a ruse. But the default position is that we don?t know what?s in other people?s hearts, only Allah knows that, so we must consider such people as misguided Muslims, not as kuffar.

If there is any group of people who consider themselves Muslims but whose Islam can be questioned, it is takfiris ? wahhabi extremists who habitually pronounce takfir on Muslims whose approach is different from theirs. This is the school of thought that has produced ISIS and similar groups of murderous lunatics. Ironically, by seeming to pronounce takfir on more than 200 million Shia Muslims and perhaps another 100 million ?Wahhabi? Muslims (a contested term) your editorial writer appears to be joining the takfiris, and making common cause with ISIS! I am sure this was not your intention, but it was nonetheless a serious error.

I am a Sunni Muslim of the Maliki school, with a Ph.D. focus on Islam in North Africa. In recent years I have traveled to Iran several times and have been appearing as a regular commentator on Press TV and in other Iranian media. After spending time in Iran and looking into Shia Islam, I have learned that the anti-Shia propaganda funded by the Zionist-controlled Saudis and their Western backers is full of lies. For example, your claim that ?there are no mosques in Iran because Shia only pray three times a day? is ridiculously false ? a lie (and remember who is the father of lies). I have prayed, as a Sunni, beside my Shia brothers and sisters in many mosques in Iran.

Claiming that Shia are not Muslims makes you a fellow traveler of ISIS, an army of ignorant buffoons led by those who are pursuing a divide-and-conquer strategy against Islam. Every knowledgable Sunni scholar on earth reveres Jafar al-Sadiq, the founder of the Jafari law school, accepted by all qualified Muslim scholars for more than 1000 years as the founder of one of the five major law schools of normative Islam, the main law school of the twelver Shia.

The differences between the Jafari law school and, say the Maliki law school, should be regarded (and have always been regarded by the scholarly consensus) as no different from the differences between the Malakis and the Hanafis, or between the Shafi?is and the Hanbalis. Yet today the Ibn Saud family, which props up dajjal (the Rothschild banking system, run by New World Order satanists) through the petrodollar, is spending billions on behalf of the Zionist War on Islam launched by the 9/11 inside job?and the keystone of dajjal?s efforts is to provoke misunderstanding and hatred between Sunni and Shia.

Did you know that all of the major leaders in Iran, including the Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei, have harshly denounced the handful of Shia extremists who insult the Companions of the Prophet? If you didn?t know that, it?s probably because you have been contaminated by the billions of Rothschild-Saudi petrodollars spent brainwashing Sunni Muslims into hating their Shia brothers and sisters.

As a Sunni, I am sad to report that today it is the Shia who are leading the struggle against dajjal by supporting the Palestinian resistance, the main focus point of Islamic resistance to imperialism, our common struggle for the self-preservation of the Muslim Ummah. Rather than slandering them, we should be lining up behind them.


Dr. Kevin Barrett

PS I am attaching some essays (by Sunni Muslims) on related topics from the new book I edited http://AnotherFrenchFalseFlag.blogspot.com.
If you would like a review copy of the book, or would like to print one or more of these essays in your newspaper, please let me know.

Editor, http://VeteransToday.com
Radio host, http://TruthJihadRadio.blogspot.com
New books: http://AnotherFrenchFalseFlag.blogspot.com http://WeAreNOTCharlieHebdo.blogspot.com
Middle East Affairs and Islamic Studies expert guest at Press TV, Al-Alam, Al-Etejah, Russia Today, etc.

Interview with Iranian News Agency - 1/31/16

On 2016-01-31 15:46:57, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]

- How do you consider the direct and indirect effects of the Islamic Revolution on the Palestinian issue?

The Islamic Revolution was the key event that transformed the Palestinian struggle from one based on nationalism to one based on ethical and religious principles. Prior to 1979, Palestinian nationalism and secular Arab nationalism dominated the resistance movement against Zionism. But the Islamic Revolution revealed to the colonized Islamic peoples all over the world that their Islamic identities were central, and that Islam could be a key element of the liberation struggle against imperialism, colonialism and Zionism, as well as a force for standing on ethical principles, no matter what the cost, rather than compromising with evil. Since that time Islamic resistance has become central to the struggle against Zionism, with groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad leading the resistance (and getting support from a liberated Iran).

- How do you see the role of Imam Khomeini in shaping the resistance movements among Palestinian people?

Imam Khomeini was a visionary leader who understood the larger historical picture and insisted on standing on principle. His declaration of Quds day, among other measures and statements, helped reveal the Palestinian struggle to be an Islamic issue and a moral issue, not just a national issue. His focus on uniting all Muslims (and others of good faith) on a common platform for justice and, where necessary, revolution, is more relevant than ever today.

- What is your opinion about the position of the Islamic Revolution towards the global Zionism?

The Islamic Revolution correctly recognized Zionism as an existential enemy of Islam, and a leading force of injustice, if not THE leading force of injustice, in the world today. That has not changed since 1979. If anything, it has become even more clear than it was then. Today, more and more people all over the world are discovering that the Islamic Revolution?s assessment of Zionism as an existential evil was and still is correct. Thanks to the decline of mainstream hegemonic media and the rise of the internet-based alternative media, the Zionists can no longer hide their horrendous crimes, nor can they conceal or deny their control of the world?s biggest banking and media empires that are driving so much of the evil that afflicts the world today.

- How did the Islamic Revolution topicalize the fight against Zionism in the Western countries?

Once the Zionists understood that the Islamic Revolution would endure, and would not abandon its principled anti-Zionist stance, they panicked. Instead of facing perhaps ten million Palestinians tepidly backed by corrupt and disunited Arab nationalist regimes, they suddenly found themselves confronting the prospect of more than a billion Muslims determined to end the Zionist plague and restore justice in Palestine. Since Muslim warriors do not fear death when they are fighting in a just cause, and since the cause of the liberation of Palestine is the most obviously just cause imaginable, it seemed impossible that ten million corrupt, egotistical, death-fearing Zionist Jews could hope to prevail indefinitely against more than a billion fearless Muslims. So the panicking Zionists resorted to a desperate gamble: The staged the ?attack on America? of September 11th, 2001, murdering three thousand people in a public relations stunt designed to drag the whole West into a genocidal War on Islam for Israel. As Dr. Alan Sabrosky of the US Army War College said, ?The Zionists are playing this (their 9/11 attack on America) as an all-or-nothing exercise.? Today we are living with the fallout from that desperate act, and the subsequent Zionist false flag terror stunts that followed.

Interview with Iranian Kayhan newspaper

On 2016-01-27 14:16:26, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]

1)How do you asses the Saudi foreign policy in approaching to its own
objectives in the middle east?has this country been successful with
his foreign policies particularly in Yemen and Syria

Saudi policy is failing miserably. They have been unable to attain any military objectives in Yemen and Syria, and have had to settle for wreaking pointless destruction on those countries. These results are counterproductive, since they tend to undermine Saudi pretensions to being a responsible regional power, and display the recklessness and fecklessness of Saudi leadership. Additionally, the Saudis have made a long-term strategic mistake by playing the sectarian card against Iran and its allies. Their ?strategy of sectarian tension? is designed to corral Sunni Muslims into an alliance with the Saudis, and this has had some superficial short-term success, for example by forging the supposed ?alliance? against Yemen. Yet in the long run this strategy undermines Saudi legitimacy, underlines Saudi complicity in takfiri ideologies and terrorism, and contributes to the instability that will eventually bring down the House of Saud.

2)Israel prime minister has recently made a statement. Netanyaho has
described Saudi as a close ally to Israel.why these two countries have
become so close to each other?

Both Israel and Saudi Arabia are artificial entities imposed on the Middle East by outside forces. It was the British Empire, dominated by Rothschild bankers, that promoted the wahhabi movement and its alliance with the Ibn Sauds, and used this alliance to destroy the Ottoman Caliphate and install a Zionist entity in the heart of the Muslim world. So Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been natural allies. Israel is the national headquarters of the transnational Zionist crime syndicate that dominates the world?s financial system, and Saudi Arabia provides the oil to prop up the Rothschild petrodollar. So while there have been occasional moments of tension between these two branches of the Western bankster crime syndicate, both are dedicated to maintaining imperialist control over the Middle East no matter how much death and destruction that project requires. Today, as the Western bankster empire faces a crisis, and considers ratcheting down its presence in the Middle East, both the Saudis and Zionists feel threatened, since neither regime will be able to survive in a more independent Middle East. So naturally they are banding together to try to prop up the old, crumbling order.

3)who will be the final winner of Saudi_Iran regional rivalry knowing
that Iran represents resistance ideology and Suadi represents
compromising Ideology?

Iran is likely to come out ahead in its regional rivalry with Saudi Arabia. Unlike Saudi Arabia, Iran has a deep-rooted national identity, tremendous reserves of ?human capital? in the form of an educated and reasonably productive population, and a coherent ideology that interprets Islam as a force for social justice?an ideology that is embodied in durable state institutions. Additionally, the Saudi alliance with an ever-more-aggressive, ever-more-genocidal Israel will in the long run alienate most of the population of the region; while Iran?s principled resistance to Zionism will win the hearts of the people, both inside and outside Iran.

4)what do you think about the future governing figure of
Saudi_Arabia.There have been different news published regarding
disputes between Mohammad bin Salman and Mohammad Bin Nayif,how do you
account that?

Mohammad bin Salman has been blamed as a reckless leader who is largely responsible for the Saudi debacles in Yemen and Syria. His youthfulness and inexperience, combined with his recklessness, make it likely that a palace coup could force him from power. Saudi economic difficulties due to their pumping vast amounts of oil as part of the Western economic war on Russia, Iran and Venezuela will exacerbate the instability that makes such a coup a real possibility. The execution of Sheikh Nimr has also alienated a key segment of the population, outraged human rights advocates worldwide, and added another destabilizing factor.

5)what is the major reason for Saudi Anti_Iranian policy?

The Saudi leadership sees that Iran?s Islamic Revolution offers an alternative ideological model that is potentially very attractive to their own people and other people of the region. And Iran is a potential economic powerhouse. Iran?s success, and potential even greater future success, makes the Saudi model ? a despotic medieval kingship controlled by Zionists and imperialists, infested by the most primitive, backward and divisive interpretations of Islam ? look bad. The Saudis are correct in estimating that continued Iranian successes could be an important factor contributing to the eventual demise of their regime.

Q&A on Sunni-Shia thing

On 2016-01-13 03:13:25, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]

Q: Where did the Sunni-Shia divide come from?
A: The historical roots are tangled and complex, but the bottom line is that the Sunni-Shia issue is not central to Islam; there are a prolific number of ?varieties? of, or approaches to, Islam, and ?Sunni-Shia? is no more central than ?Maliki-Hanafi? or ?exoteric-esoteric? or "Tijani-Deobandi? or any number of juxtapositions of one variety with another. But because the Sunni-Shia issue involves political leadership, it is easily-exploitable by the political enemies of Islam. In recent decades, prior to 2006, it was not a major issue. But after Hezbullah defeated Israel, the Zionists and imperialists panicked and convinced their Saudi and Gulf State proxies to unleash a wave of anti-Shia propaganda, which has led to the sectarian hysteria we?re seeing in some quarters today.

Q: What can be done to address the problem?
A: The main responsibility falls on Sunni Muslims, because it is Sunni Islam that is being hijacked by takfiri extremists and manipulated by Gulf State funded propagandists. Sunnis need to ?call takfir on takfirism? as Rasheed al-Hajj puts it in his essay in the new book I edited, ANOTHER French False Flag? But both Sunni and Shia Muslims can take the initiative to reach out to each other, organize get-togethers, and participate in each others? events, especially in places like the USA and Europe where both communities live side-by-side. Also, since voluntary federal union is the only realistic route toward political reunification of the Ummah, Shia-majority Iran may eventually find itself in a position to become a key part of a Muslim federation with Sunni-majority countries. Working patiently and humbly toward this goal, following the non-sectarian thinking of Imam Khomeini, would be a wise move on the part of Iranian leaders and thinkers.

Dialogue with a listener on science, morality, and religion

On 2016-01-09 15:04:37, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]

A listener wrote:

Hi again Kevin,

I enjoyed your show so much (the one you linked me to) that today I listened to some of your more recent ones too. Just fantastic! I enjoy them so much. Thank you.

I caught up on a few, including your 4-hour conference from Paris - that one's super-interesting - what an interesting line-up! I'm already thinking of people I want to share it with!

(Basically I have a lot of work to do at the moment which consists of tasks requiring quarter of a brain, so it's great to put your shows on at the same time, and then I can easily multi-task).

I also listened to a Sep 2015 show you did with Mike and Jim arguing about abortion etc. This was interesting too, although one thing you said made me feel that I cannot resist passing on a book recommendation... and another thing you said appeared to be clearly in error and I cannot resist pointing it out:

1. Where you referred to the "sexual abominations" running rampant through modern civilization, I wondered if you have read the book "Biological Exuberance" by Bruce Bagemihl?
I highly recommend it! It is jampacked full of fascinating long-neglected evidence about the sexual habits of many different animal species. It's a scholarly piece of work which gives a refreshingly new take on the role of sexuality. At least I didn't hear you saying sex was only for procreation (that would be the biggest lie on the subject!!), but I did hear you saying how you believe it is good that in Islam sex is restricted only to marriage. My argument is not against Islam, because I'm more than happy for muslims or anyone else to restrict sex to marriage if they choose to do so, BUT my argument is against your apparent implication that this is the clearly morally superior path for everyone to take, i.e., that we should all engage in no sex outside marriage. I strongly disagree. As Bagemihl clearly shows, sex throughout the animal kingdom is not a means of restricted monogamous procreation. His main point is that the majority of sexual behaviours throughout nature are not about procreation at all (I assume that you would agree with this part?), and secondly that there is an enormous variation in sexual expressions (as well as their contexts), with the only logical conclusion being that the primary function of sex is not procreation at all, nor family values, but most fundamentally an expression of biological exuberance. (Note: I have also read, in some other excellent sexology books - a subject I have been researching a lot in recent years - another complementary theory, based on the study of pygmy chimps, the animal species by far the most similar to us sexually [e.g. no other species except humans and pygmy chimps have women in heat all through the cycle, and available and interested in sex even when pregnant], which is that sexual behavious in both pygmy chimps and humans clearly performs the primary function of social bonding, helping to put each other at ease, especially in situations of potential tension, e.g. one of the many times that pygmy chimps engage in orgies is when a tribe has just found a new food source which could otherwise generate fighting). To illustrate this, Bagemihl gives thousands of vivid examples of all kinds of what you might (?) call "sexual abominations" that natural historians have - since Victorian times - wilfully ignored in their observations and documentations of nature. Even if you were to disagree with the "way of nature", in its panoply of sexual expression strongly evidenced in this book, then at the very least you would have to concede that the way of religion and family values that you say you prefer is unnatural (i.e., an exception to the entire rest of nature). I hasten to add that unnatural does not mean wrong, of course! There is no reason we must perforce be like the rest of nature, and I'm sure you'd be quick to remind me of examples, e.g. many animals engage in killing which is natural and yet we find it abhorrent in civilized society. As another everyday example, we wear clothes, unlike the rest of nature, and this makes clothing technically unnatural for a species on Earth, but it does not make clothing wrong. Likewise, any notion of sex as either being primarily about procreation in terms of function, and/or as being rigidly tied to nuclear family values, is just as unnatural as clothing, and therefore the only logical conclusion is that for those who choose this as a lifestyle, they cannot claim it is the natural way, but they are welcome to adopt it as a lifestyle choice, just in the same way as I adopt clothing as a lifestyle choice... Therefore, when you say "sexual abominations", this is an expression of a value system which you choose to share, but there is no a priori reason why - in comparison with the rest of nature - including all the thousands of very different animal species - this value system should be regarded as self-evidence or correct or something that everyone needs to share. If, for example, I defend sex outside marriage as more natural, and more agreeable to my value system, this is not to put down your value system, but to assert the co-existence of more than one value system in relation to sex in humans, wherein none of those value systems are inherently "abominable"! Your implication that this value system has something to do with the self-evident degeneration and downfall of civilization is absolutely absurd, because, by the same logic, and as evidenced by Bagemihl's book, you would perforce need to therefore argue that all of the THOUSANDS of other animal species that share this planet with us are ALL in the midst of a "downfall" of their societies likewise!! Clearly most of them are not, given that these are expressions of the natural "exuberance" which is integral to who they are - and to who we are. If there is a single characteristic which is defining of ourselves, as human beings, it must surely be our immense variety of expression, or biological exuberance - just as much as all the other animals and even more so. It is just as absurd to label this as a "downfall" as it would be to say that a nudist colony is a bunch of degenerates exemplifying the downfall of modern society, when in fact it's clear that nudists are the ones closer to nature, not us the clothed ones!

2. Where you said: ?There is really no purely logical or rational argument against this [killing spree etc.] unless it?s grounded in some kind of moral postulates.?
- there is, in fact, a purely logical and rational argument against man's violence to man, which I'm surprised you didn't consider.... It is the subject of a book I'm writing at the moment, and a subject you'll remember from when we've discussed it before, as it's certainly a personal passion of mine.... That is: systems science. According to systems science, all living systems are subject to their natural, universal properties. One of those properties, shared by all living systems, is that they are interconnected. Thus, purely through logic or rational argument, and without any need to bring morality into it at all, you can argue that, for the sake of example, a person's liver should not hurt the same person's lungs, because if the lungs collapse, the person will die, and this will cause the liver to die too. Of course, this is an extreme example of interconnectedness, but the reason for the analogy's relevance is that human life in general consists of a grand living system, in which we are all interconnected, both between ourselves as human beings, and also in our shared environment - with which we are constantly interacting, due to another essential property of living systems, which is openness. That is to say, in a nutshell, that if I harm my brother, I harm myself.... because the barriers that separate us from each other are superficial and in part illusory. (There is also a physics aspect of systems science, in David Bohm's concept of "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"). This sort of thing always appeared to be a religious or moral statement, and yet it is actually a purely logical one, once people understand the basic principles of systems science! The sad truth is that our era is not as "rational" as it likes to think, and primarily because systems science is not widely known, and most people have certainly not studied it. The nihilistic, materialistic agenda of modern civilization - a paradigm which I expect that you and I agree is destroying the world - thinks it is "rational", but is actually supremely irrational, because it flies in the face of the basic principles of systems science. The beauty of systems science, for me, is that a genuine widespread study and application of this subject would turn modern man into a spiritual being whether he is religious or not. This is wonderful, because it means that muslims, Christians and members of other religions can easily adopt systems science - because it supports many of the beliefs they already have for moral reasons - and lends scientific support to those beliefs - while at the same time it also means that non-religious people can likewise adopt systems science, and behave in a manner which you might describe as "moral" yet for purely rational reasons! I'm curious what you might make of all of this. I hasten to admit that systems science is almost never mentioned in "rational" discourse. This is a sad reflection of possibly the most glaring ignorance of our time period, but I am keen to see that change as soon as possible...

Thanks again for all your great shows, and the wonderful work you've been doing! I'm massively impressed by it all! The two above issues are just details, of course!

My response:

Hi S,

Thank you for this extremely thoughtful response! It may be the best ever response to my radio shows, which is saying something, since I have a pretty smart audience.

I don?t have time for a long response right now, since I?ve encountered a couple of technical-logistical problems regarding the publication of the new book that have to be quickly dealt with. But the short version would be:

Yes, nature is sexually exuberant, but we humans have to restrict our sexual exuberance in order to live together happily, peacefully, and productively. (For a couple of decades after puberty I recall having to restrict my sexual exuberance almost 24/7/365 except for the relatively rare occasions when I got lucky - if I hadn?t restricted myself in that way I would have been a huge pain-in-the-whatever to people around me, and found myself quickly beaten up, in jail, or worse.)

There is a reason why humans, unlike every other species, have to do this. As Ren? Girard explains, we are big-brained ultra-mimetic monkeys with no natural brakes on our tendency to desire what others desire, and thus fall into rivalries and violent conflicts with our fellows. Human sexuality, which is mixed with imagination, egotism, aggression and (potential) sadism, is always ready to run amok and destroy human relationships and even human lives.

So the main function of human sexuality is to be restricted by social rules and thereby forge social groups based on EXTENDED (not nuclear) families.

In the many ?no rules? situations I have observed in Western bohemian subcultures, and increasingly in Western mainstream culture, rivalries and broken relationships are constantly making people miserable. That is obviously not a natural (or enjoyable) way for humans to live. It has come about due to birth control, which has loosened sexual restrictions, and thus indirectly loosened the deep bonds between people that - all happiness studies show - are the real source of human happiness, and provide the social basis for a calm, peaceful soul that can ?let go? and experience the higher dimensions.

This is not just a monotheistic thing. Wisdom teachers in all traditions (and I exclude the dark shamans from this category, since they are not wise) generally agree. Even the Dalai Lama, for example, teaches that certain non-reproductive sexual acts, notably homosexual ones, have deleterious spiritual consequences. (He was, of course, raked over the coals by the gay lobby for saying that.)

As for whether science alone can provide a basis for morality?

You write:

"Thus, purely through logic or rational argument, and without any need to bring morality into it at all, you can argue that, for the sake of example, a person's liver should not hurt the same person's lungs, because if the lungs collapse, the person will die, and this will cause the liver to die too."

How can science show that it?s better for the liver and lungs to live than to die? For all science can tell us, it would be better for them to go out in a glorious blaze of violent rivalry than to co-exist in boringly peaceful fashion.

Western science is by definition value-neutral, which means it cannot value one outcome over another.

Islam offers a parallel notion of unity, tawhid. Unlike purely scientific approaches, the Islamic system (and other revealed religious/metaphysical systems) are drenched in values and thus provide an ?ought? as well as an ?is.? Living without an ?ought? grounded in a revealed metaphysical system is, for human beings (who are spiritual as well as material creatures) profoundly unnatural.


Should it be "ANOTHER French False Flag?" or "ANOTHER French False Flag!"

On 2015-12-28 19:48:23, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]

Question mark or exclamation point?! That's the big question I'm considering in my introduction to the new book: http://anotherfrenchfalseflag.blogspot.fr

I wrote to some, shall we say, 9/11 truth professors, to invite them to contribute to the book:

"By the way, might any of you be interested in contributing to a quickie book on the latest round of madness in Paris? The working title is ANOTHER French False Flag? Free Thinkers Question the 11/13 Paris Attacks."

One of them, who edited a very good book on 9/11 that appeared many years after the fact, replied:

"To suggest only three days after the event, a writing and then publishing a book one month after the Paris event is suggestive to me that the conclusion precedes the evidence, much like the French government is itself doing...It's too fast either way. We are supposed to be encouraging serious interrogation."

My reply:

"Wrong, it?s too slow. The propaganda apparatus imprints its false narrative quickly while minds are still malleable. We have to question the propaganda from the first nanosecond - otherwise Rove will be right: "And while you're studying that reality?judiciously, as you will?we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors?and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Graeme MacQueen, one of the wisest heads in 9/11-aware academia, opined:

"Already we see an interesting question that could be addressed: Can researchers who are trained to respond slowly, carefully and with deliberation, find a way to meet threats and acts of possible deception quickly, yet responsibly? I'd like to see a couple of articles on this.

Some would say the terrorist events we face in the GWOT (and they are terorrist events regardless of who authored them) involve deliberate amygdala hijack:


Assuming this is not an absurd claim, how do we strengthen the capacity of the mind for rational response, and can this be done quickly?


So...Based on what we know of other events such as 9/11, I think it's fair to ASSUME these new events are probably false flags, and put the burden of proof on the authorities and MSM to prove they aren't. And I think we should hit back as early, as often, and as hard as we can...no pussyfooting around with "studying judiciously" but rather engage in all-out "truth jihad" infowar against these demons in human form.

What do you think?

Today's interview with Mehr News Agency

On 2015-12-06 14:24:44, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]

1- In your perspective, what was/were the most important event(s) of 2015 in the realm of international affairs and politics? What makes it/them so significant and salient?

*The nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1
This agreement marked the first major defeat of the Zionist lobby globally and in the USA, and signaled that the West has finally provisionally accepted the Islamic Republic of Iran (though the Zionist elements in the West may still be dreaming of regime change).

*The success of Russia and Iran preventing regime change in Syria.
Russia, with Iranian help, has exposed the West?s phony war on DAESH and changed the balance of forces in Syria. The only way to restore Syrian stability will be through working with the current government rather than overthrowing it by military means.

*The two major terror attacks in Paris on January 7th and November 13th.
These attacks are suspected of being false flags by Operation Gladio B (a joint false flag terror program involving elements of NATO, organized crime, and Israeli intelligence). The Gladio B program aims at inciting a ?clash of civilizations? pitting the West against the Islamic world in general, and the Islamic Awakening in particular. Paris was chosen as the site of this year?s big attacks on the West because it is the capital of world secularism, and the focus of tension between French nativists and immigrants from Muslim countries, making it ideal for those creating a new ?strategy of tension."

2- What has been the consequences/implications of the event(s) in the short run? What could be its/their outcome in the long run?
The upshot of these events has been a move towards a more multipolar world. Russia and Iran, in particular, are emerging as major independent players in the new multipolar system. The Western hardliners? attempt to prevent this change using a fabricated terror threat to increase Western militarization is failing.

3- In your opinion, what is/are the most crucial issues and problems of the world that surrounds the political leaders today? What can they do to resolve that problem?

Since the world is becoming multipolar and increasingly interdependent, the challenge facing world leaders is to subdue power rivalries in favor of win-win strategies for lifting millions of people out of poverty and achieving environmental stability. This will require exposing the deceptions practiced by militarists to brainwash populations into supporting the waste of trillions of dollars every year on organizations and equipment whose only purpose is to kill, injure, or oppress our fellow human beings.

4- How do you see the trends for the 2016? What is your prediction of the events in the coming year?

I think the failure of the Western militarists' and Zionists? ?strategy of tension? against Islam will become more and more evident. I hope that these forces will not react by staging ever-greater provocations.

5- What is your assessment of the death or survival of ISIS or DAESH Terrorist Group? Will the world leaders do a concerted effort to defeat and annihilate the ISIS? Are the Leaders able to do so? How can the world achieve this goal?

This may be the year in which the West will finally have to stop supporting DAESH, thanks to the Russian-Iranian intervention. If Western leaders do decide to help shut down DAESH, which they created as a weapon of regime change in Syria, we may see a viable peace process develop which could begin to restore stability to the Middle East, which has been ravaged by Western-Zionist invasions and interventions.

I'm quoted in American Free Press article on free speech and censorship

On 2015-11-30 15:29:20, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]


?If every stupid, drunken college student who called another college student a nasty name were arrested, our jails would fill and our colleges and universities would empty,? Dr. Kevin Barrett of TruthJihad.com explained to AMERICAN FREE PRESS in a recent interview. ?I?m not in favor of drinking, stupidity, or name-calling, but I am in favor of common sense, and what we?re seeing in Oregon is not common sense.? - See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/battling-for-free-speech/#sthash.O1rVq9rr.dpuf Dr. Barrett found the prosecution of Dieudonn? particularly disturbing.

?Common sense suggests that Jews, the richest and most powerful per-capita ethnic group in America, have profited mightily by playing the victimology card,? Dr. Barrett noted. ?Billions in ?Holocaust? reparations from Germany, trillions looted from America and sent to support genocide in Occupied Palestine, and if anyone tells the truth about this, as Dieudonn? has, they?re liable to be arrested for ?hate speech.??

- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/battling-for-free-speech/#sthash.1SktOtKj.dpuf

My take on the Supreme Leader of Iran's letter to Western young people

On 2015-11-30 14:53:02, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]


Yesterday Leader of Iran published a second letter to the youths of western countries:


I would like to know our opinion about it.

Zahraa Karimi, Ms.

Working for Fars News Agency

Hello Zahraa,

The Supreme Leader has chosen to send two messages to Western youth in the wake of the two big terror attacks in Paris this year ? the first on January 7th, the second on November 13th.

These two incidents have rekindled the Islamophobia triggered by earlier big terror attacks in the West, beginning with 9/11/2001. All of the major ?radical Islamic terror attacks? have in fact been perpetrated by Zionist elements of Western intelligence agencies, and they have been designed to launch a Western war on Islam whose primary beneficiary is Israel.

This year?s attacks in Paris have intensified the Zionist propaganda war on Islam. Paris is the capital of Western secularism. And France is home to the biggest Jewish community in Europe. By attacking Paris, the Zionists want to create a big divide between secularism and Islam, and they also want to increase Jewish emigration from Europe to Israel. Additionally, their hard-line colleagues in NATO helped them attack Paris in order to increase Western involvement in Syria.

The Supreme Leader knows these things, but has to say them gently or his message will be discredited by the Zionists who control the Western media. His two letters allude to the fact that the West created, trained, and deployed Daesh and sponsors the very ?Islamic terrorism? it pretends to oppose. I believe he has done an excellent job of telling the truth in a kind and compassionate way that will be very difficult to discredit.

And he has chosen to send his messages to young people, rather than to intellectuals or politicians, because the young people are more open to new information and know how to use alternative and social media to spread non-mainstream messages.



back Next