Home My Profile Truth Blog My Messages (0 ) Logout


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.



"Agenda has shifted" at Islamophobia conference due to Paris false flag

On 2015-11-15 03:45:35, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]

Generous donors helped me raise over $2,000 to attend the Islamophobia conference in Paris this December 11th. See: http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2015/11/success-bringing-truth-to-mainstream.html

But the whole thing is now in doubt. I got this email today:

Dear Kevin,

I wanted to alert you that due to the development in Paris we will not be able to have the conference in its current format and the whole agenda has shifted. Please don't purchase a plane ticket as things are totally on hold with the state of emergency.


Director, IRDP
Editor, Islamophobia Studies Journal
Near Eastern Studies
Asian American Studies
278 Barrows Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720

I replied:

Dear Hatem,

I already purchased a non-refundable ticket. See below. I do hope the conference will take place, even if the format shifts, and will be happy to address my paper to the revised format.



I'm in Paris; met Alain Soral and Vincent LaPierre yesterday

On 2015-11-13 10:27:22, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]

En route home from Oujda, Morocco, where I lectured at the Nibrass Institute (a progressive Islamic NGO), I got a full day free layover in Paris and got to meet some folks from Egalit? et Reconciliation including Alain Soral and Vincent LaPierre....which is sort of like passing through Paris in 1950 and meeting Sartre and Camus. These guys are pretty much the only thing of any interest happening on the French political scene, which has become utterly zombified (did the NWO dump tons of fluoride into the Parisian water supply)? Anyway it was a great honor to meet the key people carrying on the tradition of the "intellectuel engag?." LaPierre gave me copies of Guyenot's book on JFK-9/11 (which I had only read in pdf version) and a French translation of Imran Hosein's "Gog & Magog." Discussions are underway concerning a French translation of We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo. Stay tuned for details...

Q&A with a high school student

On 2015-11-01 20:20:45, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]

Dear Dr. Barrett

My name is ____ . I'm 17 years old and I live in ______. For a school project, I am doing research on the 9/11-attacks and the alternative theory about this event. My aunt _____ informed me that you are willing to help me. I appreciate this very much.

I'm looking forward to hearing from you,

Personal questions

Q: Did you have a feeling something wasn?t right, immediately after the 9/11 attacks?

A: I was finishing my Ph.D at the time and was more an intellectual than intuitive type of person. So my first reactions involved what I knew from my Arabic and Islamic Studies background. I knew that al-Qaeda (AQ) was a close ally of the CIA until at least the mid-1990s. AQ was never a tightly-knit organization. It was and still is a loose, easily-infiltrated agglomeration of mujahideen (ideologically-motivated religious warriors) along with mercenaries, drug smugglers, and black operations specialists from the overlapping worlds of intelligence agencies and organized crime. AQ?s main activity has always been to fight against Russia on behalf of the US empire and the CIA, beginning with Afghanistan in the 1980s and continuing with irregular wars in Chechnya, the Balkans, and elsewhere. The idea that AQ could pull off something like 9/11 unaided by insiders struck me as dubious, as Mohamed Heikal pointed out: http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=mohammed_heikal So when AQ was immediately blamed, and no plausible explanation emerged, I grew more and more suspicious?especially as more and more evidence emerged contradicting the many incoherent and mutually-exclusive versions of the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) that were being promulgated. But I was agnostic about what might have really happened until December 2003.

Q: How long have you been involved in the 9/11 truth commission?

A: In December 2003 I heard that one of my intellectual heroes, Dr. David Ray Griffin, was writing a book presenting evidence that 9/11 was a complete inside job: The World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, the Pentagon was not hit by a 757, and so on. I knew Dr. Griffin to be a very careful, methodical, evidence-based empirical thinker, so I felt I needed to investigate the questions he was raising. I was shocked to discover that the evidence was not just persuasive, but overwhelming. Driven by a combination of moral outrage and the suspicion that the truth could be used to change the world for the better, I began holding 9/11 truth teach-ins at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, writing op-eds for the local daily newspaper (The Capital Times), and organizing events such as David Ray Griffin?s nationally-televised speech at the University of Wisconsin http://www.911review.com/articles/griffin/madison.html and the first big 9/11 truth conference http://911truth.org/911rtt/speakers.html

Q: What is your role in the commission and how do you contribute to achieving the goals of the organization?

I see the issue as a communications problem: How do we convey truthful information to enough of the right people to make a difference? I began following traditional activist models (protests, leaflets, teach-ins), moved on to start a nonprofit corporation or NGO, dabbled in politics by running for Congress in 2008, and since then have been putting most of my efforts into alternative media. I am a good writer and decent researcher, and have become a capable public speaker, so I am well-situated to play the role of a pundit in the emerging alternative media, which favors people who can speak as well as write.

Q: Can you tell me something about the history of the organization? (How/by whom was it started, etc.)

A: The 9/11 truth movement, like Al Qaeda, is not an organization - it is a loose agglomeration of (somewhat) like-minded people. The single most respected figure is Dr. David Ray Griffin, so I supposed you could call him the ?founder.? His book The New Pearl Harbor (published spring 2004) gave the movement coherence and made it at least somewhat respectable.

Q: How would you describe the main goal of the organization?

A: To put on trial and convict the real perpetrators of 9/11, including Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and so on. See http://whodidit.org/cocon.html This could be done by an international war crimes tribunal such as the one at Nuremberg, or through a Truth and Reconciliation Commission like the one in South Africa.

Q: A lot of your members are investigators, can you name some fields of their investigation?

A: I am not sure what you mean by ?investigators.? But I can name some fields of 9/11 research. A key issue of what happened to the three World Trade Center skyscrapers. AE911Truth.org focuses on this issue. Other researchers and their fields include:

*Elias Davidsson has done terrific research proving that none of the 19 alleged hijackers were aboard the allegedly hijacked jets.

*Pilots for 9/11 Truth has investigated the alleged hijackings and plane crashes and found that the official story is false.

*Christopher Bollyn has investigated Israeli involvement in the attacks

Q: What, according to you, are the flaws of the 9/11 commission investigation? Both in conclusions they drew and how the investigation was executed.

A: According to New York Times journalist Philip Shenon, Executive Director Philip Zelikow wrote the entire 9/11 Commission Report in chapter-by-chapter outline before the Commission had even convened. So there was no ?Commission investigation.? All the Commission?s ?investigators? did was follow Zelikow?s orders to dig up (false) information that could be used to support the pre-written script.

Zelikow was a Bush Administration insider whose self-described area of expertise is ?the creation and maintenance of public myths.? He published an article in 1998 in Foreign Affairs magazine describing what would happen after a new Pearl Harbor consisting of the destruction of the World Trade Center by terrorists. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1998-11-01/catastrophic-terrorism-tackling-new-danger

It is very likely that Zelikow?s outline for the 9/11 Commission Report was written before 9/11. It was the script for the fake, Hollywood style event that he and other insiders created.

Q: Does the commission think that the Bush administration knew about the attacks in advance and didn?t do anything to prevent it, or that they actually organized the attacks themselves?

It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that insiders organized the attacks themselves. Only insiders could conduct the most sophisticated controlled demolitions in history. Only insiders could bomb the Pentagon and force the world to believe a 757 plane did the damage.

Q: Besides the fact that the attacks were a good opportunity for Bush to start his ?War on Terror?, did he have any other motives, according to the commission

A: The attacks were a neoconservative coup d?etat. The neoconservatives are followers of political philosopher Leo Strauss, who taught that government should be based on Big Lies, and that Constitutional democracy should be destroyed by Machiavellians like himself. So 9/11 not only launched an endless, phony ?war on terror,? but also destroyed transparent constitutional government in the West (not just the US) and institutionalized the Deep State dictatorship that we live under today.

Q: Do you think there are certain characteristics (e.g. political color, socioeconomic background) that most supporters of the alternative theory have? Or maybe, do the people who think the conclusions of the 9/11 commission report are true, have similar characteristics, according to you?

A: Supporters of the alternative theory tend to be independent thinkers who are relatively unconcerned about what others think of them. They are more self-realized and autonomous in the sense of Abraham Maslow?s psychology. Attempts by government-funded psychologists to pathologize ?conspiracy theorists? have backfired as it has become clear that independent thinkers are at least slightly saner than less independent thinkers: http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/

Q: A poll from ?Gallup? showed that 88% of republicans are certain that Bush or the CIA had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, contrary to 35% of the democrats. Can I draw the conclusion that most of your commission consists of democrats?

A: No. This poll is misleading because of the way it is worded, blaming ?Bush or the CIA.? If you asked the question differently you would get more Republicans to side with 9/11 truth. (There would still be fewer Republican than Democrat truthers, though, not just because Bush was in office when 9/11 happened, but also because anyone who is not extremely rich yet votes Republican is a gullible idiot.)

In fact, most 9/11 truth movement members would describe themselves as independents, which is the biggest group in America. (43% of Americans are independents, 30% are Democrats, and 26% are Republicans.) But overall there are probably about as many conservative as liberal 9/11 truth movement members. For example, the majority of Ron Paul supporters are 9/11 truth supporters. And now the leading Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, is flirting with 9/11 truth in his attacks on Jeb and George Bush.

9/11 and JFK

Q: Have you ever looked into other alternatives theories, such as the murder of John F. Kennedy?

Yes. These alternative theories are obviously true. I have read perhaps 30 books on this subject over the years. The best one is James Douglass?s JFK and the Unspeakable. And this year there is a new book out by David Talbot, founder of salon.com, presenting yet more evidence that Allen Dulles, the CIA director JFK fired, orchestrated the assassination.

CIA officer Howard Hunt confessed on his deathbed to participating in the assassination as part of a CIA team working with Vice President Lyndon Johnson. Other key CIA figures involved in the JFKassassination were Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton, covert operations officer George H.W. Bush, David Atlee Phillips, and lower-level killers David Sanchez Morales, Frank Sturgis, etc. etc.

The same people killed JFK?s brother Robert Kennedy in 1968.

Q: Do you believe others (than Lee H. Oswald) were involved in the murder of JFK?

A: Of course!

Q: Do you see any similarities between the two alternative theories? (9/11 and JFK)

A: Yes, both events were monumental crimes of the Deep State. The same institutions, and the same sorts of people, were involved in both crimes. In fact, at least one of the JFK assassination perpetrators - George H.W. Bush, who commanded the shooter team in the Dal Tex building during the JFK assassination - was also deeply involved in the 9/11 coup d??tat.

Q: Do you think it can be concluded that democrats are more likely to believe in alternative theories, because it is their nature to question status-quo?

A: It isn?t that simple. Today, many Democrats do not question Guantanamo, drone killings, the continued cover-up of 9/11 and torture and the Iraq genocide, and other crimes against humanity. Why not? Because Obama, a Democrat, is in office.

It is actually independents, who understand that both political parties in the US are controlled by the same international bankers and plutocrats, who are most open to alternative theories.

But the Republican party today is even more corrupt, vicious, criminal, and downright evil than the Democratic party. Anyone who considers themselves a Republican in the USA today is either a billionaire psychopath or an idiot. So it isn?t surprising that there are very few non-billionaire Republicans who understand what is really going on in the world.

Michael Lerner's reply - and my subsequent reply

On 2015-11-01 17:05:33, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]

Dear Kevin,
You have an article from me in that book. That is my contribution to you. I don't know anyone who takes the conspiracy theory on Charlie Hebdo seriously enough to want to spend time refuting it. DO you?

Dear Rabbi Lerner,

I know a long list of highly-accomplished people who assert that Charlie Hebdo was (or likely was) a false flag. Let?s start with some in the book: Cynthia McKinney (I hope you voted for her for president); John Cobb (likely the world?s leading protestant theologian); Paul Craig Roberts; Anthony Hall; Barbara Honegger?

Two prominent endorsers of the book, David Ray Griffin and Richard Falk, might also be mentioned.

Maybe you could start by reading the essays in the book by the five above-listed contributors?



back Next