|Home||My Profile||Truth Blog||My Messages (0 )||Logout|
Get Out: Anti-White or “Anti-Semitic”?
By Kevin Barrett, for American Free Press
Liberal film critics and mass audiences alike love Jordan Peele’s horror comedy sensation Get Out. Both groups correctly perceive that Get Out is well-made, funny, thought-provoking, and disturbing.
The film’s only major bad review comes from an apparent old conservative white guy appropriately named Armond White. Writing in the National Review, White calls Get Out “a trite get-whitey movie.”
It’s quite a bit more than that. But since I can’t explain why without spoiling the film’s surprises, you may want to watch it before reading further.
Get Out follows a young black man being taken home by his wealthy white girlfriend to “meet the parents.” The protagonist, played by Daniel Kaluuya, discovers himself on a zombified slave plantation run by creepy, not-quite-sincere-sounding white liberals who protest too much that they “would have voted for Obama a third time.” Though they superficially appear to be anti-racist, too-politically-correct Obama voters, the girlfriend’s family turns out to be part of a trans-generational conspiracy to kidnap healthy young black people and implant ailing old white people’s brains into their bodies, thus offering their clients immortality. (The catch is that you have to experience immortality from the perspective of an enslaved black person.)
For most of the film, we understand that the girlfriend’s family has been somehow capturing black people and turning them into zombies with “white” personalities. One of these Oreo cookie (black on the outside, white on the inside) zombies looks a lot like Barack Obama. Peele is obviously suggesting that Obama is a mind-controlled Oreo zombie run by wealthy, powerful white people who only pretend to be liberal and tolerant, but who are actually part of a demonic conspiracy that seeks absolute power … a conspiracy to remake the world as a gigantic plantation worked by mind-controlled zombie slaves, with themselves as plantation masters.
Is Get Out peddling New World Order “conspiracy theories”? Of course it is! One of the film’s many hints along these lines is the fact that the Kaluuya character’s best friend Rod, derided by everyone as a “paranoid conspiracy theorist,” turns out to be right. And it’s no accident that “conspiracy theorist” Rod (played by Lil Rel Howery) works for TSA and indirectly references 9/11. His brilliant detective work mirrors that of the 9/11 truth movement.
Rod, in fact is the archetype of a certain type of black character: the “conspiracy theorist” that everyone in the black community, except for a smattering of Oreos, knows is probably mostly right, no matter how crazy they sound. This sociological reality – that the black community by and large knows that 9/11 was a false flag and that the New World Order conspiracy is real – is on display in the hip-hop world, where such subjects are regularly rapped about.
So the real secret of Get Out – cleverly disguised and hidden from elite film critics and mainstream viewers alike – is that the “zombie conspiracy” at the heart of the film symbolizes 9/11 and the New World Order conspiracy. The elitist, highly-educated white liberals so devastatingly lampooned in the film are either (a) zombies who have been spiritually neutered and mind-controlled by 9/11 and similar events, or (b) evil New World Order conspirators themselves or (c) some bizarre, schizoid combination of both of the above.
Liberal critics understand that Get Out viciously mocks white people (and makes us cheer when the black hero slaughters them.) They don’t mind that. Only conservative reviewer Armond White takes offense.
But since these same liberals call New World Order conspiracy theories “anti-Semitic,” what would happen if we viewed Get Out’s evil upper-middle-class white family as Jewish? Would these critics still be cheering if the film’s African-American hero mass-slaughtered Jews rather than non-Jewish white people?
Reading the evil “white” family as Jewish is hardly a stretch. Jews, after all, dominated the slave trade, as documented by the Nation of Islam Research Group’s two-volume The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. And the evil family in Get Out is basically a family of slave traders. Their extreme clannishness, hidden beneath the veneer of superficial “good-hearted liberalism” and “tolerance” and “multiculturalism,” also reminds us of Jewish stereotypes that are not entirely without foundation.
Some “anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists” charge that Jewish elites have engaged in an intergenerational conspiracy to achieve supreme power and (collective) immortality while enslaving the goyim as well as the masses of their own tribe. The apparent Zionist hand behind 9/11 and similar events seemingly provides evidence to support such theories.
So it is rather astounding that Get Out has been so well-received by the world of American cinema, which is top-heavy-with, if not actually dominated by, Jewish-Americans of the liberal persuasion.
The moral: Bash white people hard enough, and cleverly enough, and you can get away with anything.
Here is a letter to American Free Press, where I am a columnist. It was published in the most recent issue: http://americanfreepress.net Following the letter is the Editor's response, then my response. -KB
Having just read the [March 27 & April 4] “Letters to the Editor,” I was extremely offended by Kevin Barrett’s slanderous comments toward the God of the Bible, labeling Him a “petty Jewish tribal idol.” Since Barrett is a staff writer, and since his comments were in bold, it has all the markings of AFP editorial support and is treading on sacrilegious ground.
I am an original subscriber and Christian supporter going all the way back to Liberty Ledger. I annually provide subscriptions to numerous libraries, friends, relatives, and prisoners. I have had AFP listed in my will. All of this will come to an abrupt end unless you clearly distance yourself from Barrett’s offensive attack on Yahweh and His Holy Word.
Apparently, Barrett is a former Christian, who has rejected Christ and become a Muslim. He should not be considered worthy of financial support as a writer. And “doctor”? Of what? Certainly not of theology or else he would know that the Old Testament is a history of the Israelites, not the “Jews.” And if he is looking to criticize violence he could delve deeper into his new religion.
(Dr. Barrett’s response to the letter that was published in the March 27 & April 4 edition was entirely his own, uncensored personal viewpoint. Not all of our writers agree with us on every religious matter. Thus, we feel it best for writers to express their own religious beliefs to readers without filtering. AFP is a Christian family newspaper. Dr. Barrett is Muslim. It is inevitable we will disagree on some things, but we hold much common ground with Dr. Barrett on many important issues and respect his opinions, as we do those of our readers, no matter what religion you are.—Ed.)
I am sorry if my religious views have offended Ken Masat, who seems to have been affected by the anti-Islam propaganda campaign launched by the 9/11 PR stunt. Clarifications: I am not “a former Christian who has rejected Christ and become a Muslim.” I was a secular “lapsed Unitarian” and when I came to Islam I embraced Christ for the first time. (Islam teaches that Christ, born of a virgin, is indeed the Messiah.)
My doctorate (in Arabic) involved Religious Studies, with a focus on Sufism in North Africa. As a Religious Studies scholar it is my considered opinion that the Old Testament is an extremely problematic text, and that it should be obvious to any fair-minded reader why God would send Jesus and later Muhammad to “turn it on its head” and re-interpret its stories from a universal ethical perspective. Much of its material, taken at face value, is neither universal nor ethical, but tribal and deeply unethical. We see the result every day in modern “Israel.”
Tasnim News Agency interview
#Q1: The terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) recently claimed that the Islamic Republic is violating the 2015 nuclear agreement between Tehran and world powers by secretly conducting research on nuclear weapons components at the Parchin military site in Iran. The spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) strongly dismissed the allegations by the terrorist group against Tehran’s nuclear program, saying the claims are of no value for the Islamic Republic. What is your take on this? What is behind such allegations?
The MKO is one of the world’s craziest terrorist groups. Its combination of fanatical leftist extremism and irrational strategy and tactics is reminiscent of groups like the Red Brigades and the Baader-Meinhof gang, which we now know were run by the Pentagon’s Operation Gladio during the Cold War.
Like the Red Brigades and the Baader-Meinhof gang, the MKO has no popular support whatsoever. Iranians of all political stripes hate them, largely because MKO operators have murdered thousands of Iranians in terror attacks dating back to the 1980s, when the MKO was an ally of Saddam Hussein in the Imposed War against the Islamic Republic.
How can a group with no popular support continue to operate and garner attention? By serving as a front for Iran’s external enemies, led by the US and Israel. So when the MKO makes allegations against Iran’s nuclear program, it is undoubtedly doing so at the behest of its paymasters in Washington, DC and Tel Aviv, who want to put their false charges against Iran into the mouth of a supposedly “Iranian” source.
#Q 2: It seems that the new US administration has breathed new life into the terrorist group. Republican US Senator John McCain praised the head of the MKO, in a recent meeting in the Albanian capital, Tirana. What do you think? What is terror group looking for under Trump?
The mercenaries who run MKO undoubtedly want to extract as much money from the US government as they possibly can. And Trump and McCain, despite their personal differences, both take a very hostile anti-Iran line. So this is a marriage made in hell between the terrorist mercenaries and the anti-Iran extremists in the US. The Trump Administration, dominated as it is by Jared Kushner and other followers of Netanyahu, will probably waste more money on the MKO than the Obama Administration did. Strategically, this is a stupid move, because it will harden the resolve of the Iranian people. But Trump’s and Bibi’s people are not very intelligent strategists. They probably imagine they can destabilize Iran using the MKO in the same way the US and its regional “allies” destabilized Libya and Syria using proxies from those countries. What they seemingly don’t realize is that the forces of destabilization did have some support within Libya and Syria, but the MKO has zero support inside Iran. So the only accomplishment of this anti-Iran campaign will be to unite Iranians against the MKO and its backers.
Q# 3: As you know, more than 17,000 Iranians, many of them civilians, have been killed at the hands of the MKO in different acts of terrorism including bombings in public places, and targeted killings. Why do Saudi Arabia, US, and certain European countries continue to support the anti-Iran terror group despite its heinous crimes?
That is a good question. Why do these backers continue to prop up a failed, fanatical communist terrorist group that all Iranians hate? As I said, the MKO is a strategically counterproductive tool in the hands of Washington and Tel Aviv. Why would Iran’s enemies keep shooting themselves in the foot? I suppose the answer is that the MKO’s backers are deceiving themselves. They get their information about Iran mainly from Iranian exiles in Los Angeles, especially the wealthy, well-connected ones who were often close to the Shah’s ruling circles. Some of these wealthy exiles harbor fanatical hatred for the Islamic Republic. They want to hurt it. And their instinctive hatred leads them to think and act irrationally, and to give bad advice to their American and Zionist masters.
By Kevin Barrett, for American Free Press (reproduced here for TruthJihad.com subscribers only, not for dissemination in any form)
Like President Donald Trump, I am being harassed by the Zionist Lobby. But unlike Trump, I am not giving an inch.
Somebody – presumably the attack-dog wing of the Lobby – just “nuked” my GoFundMe account. A grand total of $1015 disappeared from my account, “refunded” to donors. Worse, my main database of supporters disappeared.
Meanwhile, someone named Spencer Sunshine has written to the Left Forum urging them to cancel my speaking appearances there, scheduled for June 2 – 4:
“I am writing to you, on behalf of a group of NYC activists, to express our objection to a number of antisemitic conspiracy theorists and Holocaust deniers who appeared on the ‘Deep State track’ last year. The most well-known of these speakers, Kevin Barrett, bragged on the Far Right website Veterans Today that they had tricked the Left Forum into hosting their speakers… We hope that these individuals, and those with similar views, will not be invited back to the Left Forum.”
I called Spencer Sunshine to find out more about why he is trying to silence me. Who are the alleged other members of the “group of NYC activists” he purportedly represents?
Sunshine refused to discuss whether the alleged group is real or fabricated. He accused me of anti-Semitism, claiming that I knew “Sunshine” was a Jewish name, and that therefore I must have called him a Zionist on my radio show because I knew he was Jewish and assumed that all Jews were Zionists. He refused to believe me when I explained that I had no idea that “Sunshine” is a common Jewish surname. In fact, I had assumed he was a Zionist because of his efforts to silence critics of the Zionist lobby in the United States.
Meanwhile, here in Madison, Wisconsin, the Gilad Atzmon event I am organizing is under attack and will likely have to change its location. Atzmon, an Israeli-born philosopher and jazz musician, is a leading critic of Jewish identity politics, a central component of Zionism.
The event was proposed as “the Gilad Atzmon Debate Challenge.” I tried to find a qualified opponent to debate Gilad. No takers.
Clearly, the Lobby is trying to silence its most articulate critics rather than refute them. Why? The Lobby knows it would likely lose any debate.
Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has also found itself under attack by the Lobby. But unlike me, Trump has capitulated.
In early March, Trump suggested that “anti-Semitic” attacks on Jewish targets were false flags. The Jewish Daily Forward, in a story headlined “Why Trump’s ‘False Flag’ Comment About Jews and Anti-Semitism Is So Dangerous,” wrote:
“Threats (against Jewish targets) are not genuine, he (Trump) suggested. They are ‘the reverse,’ he said — carried out by his political opponents ‘to make people, or to make others, look bad.’
The comments might seem bewildering. But in far-right, conspiracy-fixated circles, many believe these anti-Semitic threats are in fact ‘false flags,’ nefariously carried out by Jews in order to tear down Trump. Analysts call this Jewish ‘false flag’ allegation one of the oldest — and most effective — anti-Semitic ‘dog whistles’ out there.”
As it turned out, Trump was right. The threats were false flags. Most were perpetrated by an Israeli-American dual citizen named Michael Ron David Kaydar. But did Trump’s Zionist critics apologize? Hardly! Instead they wanted Trump to apologize…for being right!
Then Sean Spicer made his infamous remark about how even Hitler (unlike Assad) didn’t gas his own people. Gas chamber denial! The Zionists were apoplectic.
So Trump began groveling, obsequiously kowtowing to the Israel lobby. He delivered a bizarre Easter message that looked like a hostage video. In it, Trump went on and on about how wonderful Jews and Israel are, wishing everyone a happy Passover, and barely mentioning Easter as an afterthought.
Then, a little over a week later, Trump visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC and once again abased himself before the high altar of Zionism. Lavishing the late serial liar Elie Wiesel with sycophantic adulation, Trump said:
“Denying the Holocaust is only one of many forms of dangerous anti-Semitism that continues all around the world. We’ve seen anti-Semitism on university campuses, in the public square, and in threats against Jewish citizens. Even worse, it’s been on display in the most sinister manner when terrorists attack Jewish communities, or when aggressors threaten Israel with total and complete destruction.
“This is my pledge to you: We will confront anti-Semitism (Applause.) We will stamp out prejudice. We will condemn hatred. We will bear witness. And we will act. As President of the United States, I will always stand with the Jewish people -- and I will always stand with our great friend and partner, the State of Israel.”
All hail Trump! All hail Israel!
The USA no longer exists.
By Kevin Barrett, for American Free Press
Reproduced at the TruthJihad.com Truth Blog for subscribers only. Do not copy circulate!
“Radical Muslims” commit vehicular assault in London and Stockholm. More “radical Muslims” ethnically cleanse Christians from the ISIS-occupied areas of Iraq and Syria. And still more “radical Muslims” carry out a Palm Sunday bombing of a church in Egypt. In all cases, the blame is pinned on ISIS.
But what is ISIS, exactly? Is there more here than meets the eye?
ISIS was created by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi while he was a prisoner of the US military at Camp Bucca, Iraq. Camp Commander Kenneth King told the Daily Beast that al-Baghdadi spent four years in Camp Bucca. But King’s superiors forced him to retract that statement. They also covered up the fact that the rest of the future ISIS high command was at Camp Bucca with al-Baghdadi.
Why the coverup? Because Camp Bucca was a “Jihadi University” supervised by US and Israeli mind control experts, who created ISIS by brainwashing prisoners?
You want proof that the US created ISIS? Wikileaks has revealed that on August 12, 2012, the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued a secret document welcoming the establishment of a “Salafist principality” or “Islamic state” through “union” of “terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria” led by ISI, a brutal US-created death squad. Right on cue, in June 2014, “ISIS” appeared on the world stage by taking Mosul and declaring a caliphate.
Why would the US government and its Israeli partners/handlers create ISIS? Firstly, to attack the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, as the DIA document says. Secondly, to destabilize Iraq and prevent the new Iran-friendly government in Baghdad from consolidating and rebuilding the country. Thirdly, to create a telegenic “evil enemy” to serve as a convenient pretext for US intervention. Fourthly, to demonize Islam and keep the “clash of civilizations” going for the benefit of the military-industrial complex and Greater Israel.
So ISIS is not a “radical Muslim” group at all. It consists of Western mercenaries, along with ex-Baath Party atheists and a few Wahhabi fanatics. And its main purpose is to kill Muslims and wage war against independent Muslim-majority countries, starting with Islamic Iran and its “Axis of Resistance.”
Let’s take a closer look at some recent “ISIS attacks,” beginning with the Palm Sunday bombing in Tanta, Egypt. The bombing was used as a pretext for Egypt’s murderous military dictator, al-Sisi, to declare a three-month state of emergency. Now al-Sisi can accelerate his campaign of murdering, imprisoning, and torturing his Muslim Brotherhood critics.
Previous “radical Muslim” attacks on Christians in Egypt have been proven false flags. For example, the 2011 Egyptian revolution accelerated when it was revealed that then-President Mubarak's regime collaborated with the Israeli Mossad to bomb a Coptic church in Alexandria on New Years Eve — and blame it on Mubarak’s Muslim Brotherhood enemies. Al-Sisi, who has inherited Mubarak’s role as figurehead for the Egyptian Deep State, was likewise almost certainly the real author of the recent Palm Sunday bombing, from which he and only he hugely benefited.
ISIS attacks on Christians in Iraq and Syria are likewise engineered by the enemies of Muslims. Their purpose is to demonize Islam in the eyes of world public opinion and invite Western intervention, which mainly benefits Israel.
Most Western news reports fail to acknowledge that almost all ISIS victims are Muslims. ISIS’s policy is to murder all Muslims who disagree with them (which is virtually all Muslims). But they don’t kill Christians on sight. They just demand a special tax. So if you are a Christian, ISIS gives you a degree of religious freedom. But if you are Muslim, you have to parrot their Wahhabi nonsense or you will be executed.
Alleged ISIS attacks in the West likewise benefit the enemies of Islam, not Muslims. The vehicular attack in London was an obvious false flag: Witnesses saw two assailants, but only one patsy was blamed. A “terror on the Thames” drill happened shortly before the “real” event. Ambulance were conspicuously absent. Crisis acting has been detected. All CCTV cameras were disabled right before the “attack.” Security at Parliament stood down. And the event happened on 3/22 (322 = Skull and Bones).
The follow-up truck attack in Stockholm is also suspicious. How did Donald Trump know, seven weeks in advance, that Sweden was the target of a major terror operation? At the time, Trump was mocked, since no such attack had happened in Sweden (or in Bowling Green either, for that matter).
Maybe people in Bowling Green should keep an eye out for rogue trucks.
In any case, since we know that the previous truck attacks in Berlin and Nice (publicized by Mossad photographer Richard Gutjahr) were false flags, we should consider
Stockholm a false flag too until proven otherwise. Ditto for future “terror” events.
How do you define jihad as a scholar of Islamic studies? What’s the difference between the true meaning of jihad and the definition broadcasted by mainstream media?
In the broadest sense, jihad (struggle in the path of God) is the complementary opposite of islam (surrender to God). When we surrender completely to God, we become entirely passive. There is an oceanic ecstasy in absolute surrender, in which the nafs (ego) is annihilated. Sufis call this fana. But life also requires us to stand up and struggle to our utmost limits. This is jihad.
It can happen in warfare, or “lesser jihad,” which often requires people and societies to struggle to their utmost limits. This kind of jihad is described in the Qur’an in terms of fighting oppressors, aggressors, “those who expel you from your homes.” In the original context, this jihad was the defensive struggle of the community of the Prophet Muhammad (SAAS) against the pagans of Mecca. Since then, this concept of the lesser jihad has been used and abused by various Muslim rulers in relation to various wars and conflicts. There is a vast, complex, not-entirely-coherent doctrine of Islamic law concerning lesser jihad. It is very difficult for an ordinary Muslim to make sense of it and decide which, if any, contemporary or historical conflicts were bona fide jihads. (The one exception, of course, is the struggle of the original Muslim community of Medina, which is universally acknowledged as the prototype of lesser jihads, or legitimate and necessary armed struggles.)
I would argue that the concept of lesser jihad encompasses all forms of expending great effort or taking personal risk in order to defend the community, and that armed struggle is just the most obvious of these. Someone who goes on a secret, extremely risky diplomatic mission to prevent an enemy from attacking ones community is waging lesser jihad even if he or she is not wielding a weapon. The Qur’an makes it clear that making the effort, taking the risk, and defending the community are the key concepts, and that “those who lag behind” out of laziness, fear, or unwillingness to defend the community are morally deficient.
Alongside the lesser jihad, there is also the “greater jihad” that consists of struggling against the evil of our own ego, the nafs al-ammara bis-su’ or “ego that commands evil.” It consists of our struggle against the evils within ourselves, and the temptations in the world around us. In a sense this inner struggle is even more basic than any kind of outer struggle, which may be why it is considered the greater of the two basic forms of jihad.
How do you personally feel about jihad?
As my website TruthJihad.com puts it: “Jihad means effort, struggle, or striving to 1) be a better person, or 2) defend the community. 'The best jihad is a word of truth flung in the face of a tyrant.’”
I love the many ahadith stating that the best possible jihad is speaking the truth to an unjust ruler. This kind of “truth jihad” unites the lesser and greater jihads. It is lesser jihad because one is making effort, taking a risk, and defending the community (from injustice). And it is greater jihad because one has to fight ones own inner cowardice, laziness, and sycophancy.
Foucault’s discussion of Parrhesia is apropos: “When a philosopher addresses himself to a sovereign to a tyrant and tells him that his tyranny is disturbing and unpleasant because tyranny is incompatible with justice then the philosopher speaks the truth, believes he is speaking the truth, and more than that, also takes a risk 'since the tyrant may become angry, may punish him, may exile him, may kill him.'"
Regarding armed struggle, I am generally opposed to it unless it is defensive, absolutely necessary, and thoroughly justifiable. It seems to me that the Palestinian struggle qualifies. But in today’s world, weapons have grown so powerful and destructive that warfare has become an even worse option than in the past. So we need to update Sun Tzu’s advice that “the best time to win a war is before the fighting has even started” and use persuasion and strategy rather than physical weapons, to the extent that this is possible. Since I am better qualified with words than with weapons, I personally specialize in “verbal jihad."
Do you see jihad as a phenomenon that leads to terrorist acts across the globe?
Terrorism—the intentional targeting of innocent civilians—is incompatible with jihad. All schools of Islamic thought, except perhaps a few very recent takfiri aberrations, agree on that. So the false equation of jihad with terrorism is a propaganda ploy by the enemies of Islam.
In the recent Israeli assaults on Gaza, the Israelis have killed thousands of people, most of them civilians, including a large proportion of children. The Palestinian resistance has responded by targeting Israeli soldiers. Obviously it is the Israelis who are the terrorists.
What’s your take on the rise of Islamophobia in Western countries? What leads to anti-Muslim sentiments?
Islamophobia has been spread primarily by Zionists who realize that their genocidal invasion and occupation of the Holy Land has put them in long-term conflict with the global Muslim community. Netanyahu convened the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism in 1979 to create a new enemy, “terrorism,” to replace communism, which was about to collapse. Clearly Netanyahu and his brain trust, led by Orientalist Bernard Lewis, were scheming to create the notion of “Islamic Terrorism” as a propaganda ploy to draw the West into a long-term war against Israel’s Muslim enemies. This “clash of civilizations” (the term was coined by Lewis) is an artificially-created phenomenon. It was officially launched with the public relations stunt on September 11th, 2001. Since then, the people of the West have been subjected to non-stop anti-Islam propaganda, and widespread Islamophobia is the result.
Unfortunately, Muslims have not responded as effectively as one might wish. The regime in Saudi Arabia has used its vast oil wealth to promote forms of Islam that make Islam look bad in the eyes of the world. Had the same amount of money been spent to promote more accurate, sensible, and attractive approaches to Islam, and to unmask the Zionists behind the phony “clash of civilizations,” I believe a large segment of the population of the West would have already converted to Islam, and the rest would view Islam favorably.
Please note that articles posted here in the Truth Blog are private, not public. They are copyrighted exclusives and may not be posted on the internet, emailed, or in any way disseminated. They are posted here for the eyes of TruthJihad.com subscribers only!
Tehran Conference underlines global support for Palestine — and challenges Trump
By Kevin Barrett, for American Free Press
The expression “Tehran Conference” usually refers to the historic meeting of Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin in November, 1943. But a more recent Tehran Conference — the 6th International Conference on the Palestinian Intifada, held February 21 and 22, 2017 — may turn out to be just as historic.
Nearly 1,000 people from roughly 80 nations around the world, including heads of parliament and other high-level dignitaries, met in Tehran to vow all-out support for the Palestinian liberation struggle. And although all of Iran’s highest officials participated, including President Hassan Rouhani, Parliament Speaker Ali Laranjani, Military Chiefs Mohammed Bagheri and Mohammad Ali Jafari, and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, it was Supreme Leader Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei’s eloquent voice and long-term commitment to the Palestinian cause that carried the most weight.
I was one of nine Americans participating as part of an NGO-sponsored sub-delegation of about 50 pro-Palestine alternative writers and intellectuals from around the world. The US contingent spanned the ideological spectrum from the left (Sander Hicks) to the right (E. Michael Jones) with most falling somewhere in between.
Many of the US participants have been marginalized in their own country for voicing strong anti-Zionist positions, including critiques of Jewish tribal power that are taboo in the West. People like E. Michael Jones of Culture Wars magazine, Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review, and Mark Glenn of Crescent and Cross are vilified and banned from mainstream discourse in the West, yet welcomed and appreciated in Iranian intellectual circles. (Jones calls Tehran “the capital of the free world.”) Likewise, the two anti-Zionist Naturei Karta rabbis Yisroel Dovid Weiss and Ahron Cohen (whose car was destroyed in an 2014 arson attack) are despised and excluded from the American and British Jewish communities, yet wildly popular in Iran.
Ayatollah Khamenei opened the Conference by laying out the problem in no uncertain terms: “(Israel’s) entity and identity are dependent on the gradual destruction of the entity and identity of Palestine.” In other words, Zionism equals genocide. Khamenei termed Zionism a “cancerous tumor” and said the cure is fearless resistance, which will, in stages, gradually put Israel into an untenable situation, leading to a peaceful ending of the Zionist experiment in aggression, wholesale theft of land and resources, and Jewish-superiority apartheid.
All of the leading Palestinian resistance groups sent high-level representatives to the conference. These included Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. All of those sometimes feuding groups managed to get on the same page during the past few months, thanks in part to the Iranian commitment to bringing together all the main currents of Palestinian freedom fighters. Hezbollah, the Lebanese group fighting Israeli occupation (and ISIS) was also represented.
Iran’s commitment to unifying the world’s pro-Palestine forces is especially heroic given current political realities. In recent years, Israel has succeeded in consolidating its power not only in America and the West, but also in the backward, dictatorial portion of the Arab world. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf oil sheikhdoms are now openly allied with the Zionists.
Against this background, US President Donald Trump and some of his advisors have taken extreme anti-Iran positions that conflict with the US national interest. Two weeks after his inauguration, Trump called Iran “the world’s leading terrorist state.” Yet in reality, Iran and its ally Hezbollah are the world’s leading fighters AGAINST the only two “Islamic” militant groups that target the West: Al Qaeda and ISIS.
So why does Trump think Iran sponsors terrorism? Because his good friend Bibi Netanyahu and his Zionist son-in-law Jared Kushner tell him so. The Zionists consider anti-Israel resistance groups “terrorists.” Iran supports them. That is why the Zionist-dominated USA has gone along with Israeli efforts to label Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad “terrorists.”
The US is shooting itself in the foot by siding with the Zionists against the people of the Middle East and the world. A Chinese delegate at the conference expressed shock when I told her I was from the United States: “What? You are from America? Why do the Iranians let you in?” While American businesses are basically banned by their own Zionist-run government from trading with Tehran, other nations, led by the Chinese, are making money by dominating global trade with the Iranians, the most productive, technologically-sophisticated people in the Middle East.
Will the Trump Administration ultimately let go of its Iran hawks (like former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn) and decide to pursue America’s interests rather than those of Israel? If that day ever comes, a whole lot more Americans — businessmen and tourists, not just dissident writers like me — will be borrowing the book title from Flynt and Hillary Leverett and “Going to Tehran.”
1. Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has been the only country in the Middle East standing against the US and pursuing independence. What’s your view on such Iranian paradigm of countering the US hegemony? Has the Islamic Republic of Iran succeeded in promoting that model and enlightening the international community about Washington’s policy of interference?
The 1979 Islamic Revolution succeeded in freeing Iran from the US empire. Its success has been largely due to the genius of Imam Khomeini, who found a way to bring Islam back into the center of public life, in the context of a modern constitutional republic, through the Wilayat al-Faqih model. Though Iran has unfortunately not succeeded in spreading the Wilayat al-Faqih model to other Muslim countries — presumably because those countries do not have scholars with the necessary courage and abilities to implement it, and also because the larger community of Muslim scholars has been unable to decisively transcend sectarianism — it has succeeded in forging an Axis of Resistance against the US-Zionist forces that dominate the region. To a lesser extent Iran has also succeeded in helping mobilize a diverse coalition of international intellectuals and activists who reject imperialism and Zionism. Many of these thinkers and activists, hopefully including myself, will be present at the 6th International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Intifada to be held February 21 and 22 in Tehran.
2. What approaches do you think the hegemons have adopted to hinder the spread of that Iranian anti-arrogance paradigm in the Middle East?
The hegemons fought back against Iran’s Islamic Revolution first by trying to stop it, then by attacking it using terrorism and the Imposed War with Iraq, and finally by using a “containment” strategy. This strategy, like the one developed by George Kennan for the containment of the USSR, attempted to stop the “expansion” of Iran’s influence using "the adroit and vigilant application of counterforce at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points” (from Kennan’s famous “Mr. X” article). The US and Israel have supported the M.E.K. and other terrorist groups; supported other anti-Iran forces in the region; interfered in the internal politics of Middle Eastern countries to turn them against Iran; imposed blockades and sanctions against Iran; propagandized against Iran and its Islamic Revolution in both Western and controlled Middle Eastern media; and, especially after Hezbollah’s 2006 victory over Israel, incited sectarianism and Iranophobia among Middle Eastern Sunni Muslims. They have tried to steer the conversation away from the real issue: Should Middle Eastern countries be Islamic and independent, or should they be pawns of imperialists and Zionists who are not just non-Muslim, and not just actively hostile to Islam, but who are actually waging a long term war against Islam and Muslims? The Western and Zionist propagandists attempting to “contain” Iran and its revolution try to hide this, the real issue, and instead dupe Middle Eastern people into seeing the struggle in the Middle East as Shia vs. Sunni or Persian vs. Arab, all the while ignoring the Western-Zionist death grip on the region.
3. What could have happened without the revolution in Iran and in the absence of the Iranian ideology of countering arrogance? How do you think the regional and international situation would be shaped in that case?
It is hard to imagine a 2017 Middle East in which the Pahlavi dynasty still ruled Iran on behalf of Zionism and US imperialism. It is likely that such an Iran would be a bit like today’s India. It would have higher rates of poverty and illiteracy, but there might also be an economic boom for the rich and those collaborating with the imperialists. It might also be afflicted by environmental disasters, as happens wherever Western corporations are allowed to set up shop.
The Palestinians would be even worse off than they are in today’s actual world. The forces of resistance against imperialism and Zionism would not have a friendly government devoted to helping them. Israel might occupy all or most of Lebanon, and the Palestinians might have been completely expelled from historic Palestine.
Finally, and worst of all from my perspective, there would be no workable contemporary model of Islamic governance that Muslims around the world could look to and learn from. For even though Iran’s Islamic Republic has not directly inspired the creation of other independent Islamic Republics, it has shown that such a model can work, even when all of the world’s most powerful empires oppose its existence. Thanks to Islamic Iran’s example, Muslim scholars and activists in other countries may one day rise to the level of their Iranian counterparts and help their own countries become genuinely independent and Islamic.
_What is the major political challenges Clinton faces as a president inside and outside the united states?
The next presidential puppet (and the power-brokers who really run things) will face the most unstable domestic and global situation since the 1930s. Several systemic crises are about to reach their climaxes simultaneously. These crises include:
*Unpayable debt, the inevitable result of a monetary system in which a private banking cartel creates fiat currency by lending it into existence at interest.
*Accelerating inequality resulting from the usury-based economic system and the rise of automation.
*Decline of US and Western hegemony resulting from the West’s declining share of global GDP and the increasing futility of trying to solve problems with military force.
*Decline of the family as the basic social unit.
*Perhaps most importantly, the US and global public’s loss of faith in Western grand narratives or -public myths- that provide a basis for social cohesion.
The neoconservative attempt to create a new Western grand narrative making Islam the new civilizational enemy will be increasingly unable to obscure the fact that Islam offers the most viable solutions to the West’s problems by way of its:
*Absolute prohibition of usury.
*Egalitarianism and call to voluntary redistribution through charity.
*Anti-corporatism (i.e. rejection of -church- and by extension -limited liability corporation-)
*Promotion of family values.
*Time-tested monotheistic grand narrative that gives meaning to individual and social life.
*”Family resemblance” to Christianity, the core mythos of Western civilization.
_Is she able to handle them , despite of depth of problems?
The next president and his or her handlers will be unable to change the situation outlined above. It is possible that Clinton will accelerate the current crisis by trying to impose military solutions on such regional problems as Syria and Ukraine. This effort would exacerbate problems, not solve them. In the unlikely event that Trump is elected, his handlers might try to revive the neoconservative myth of the so-called Islamic threat by staging another 9/11 style false flag atrocity. This, too, would simply exacerbate the systemic problems outlined above.
While at the 9/11 Truth Film Festival in Oakland, CA I learned that someone involved with the Unitarians in Berkeley is trying to get my October 16th speech there canceled. Here is my letter to their board (email@example.com).
To the BFUU Board,
It has come to my attention that someone is trying to prevent me from returning to speak at BFUU, where I gave a very well-received talk last year.
Since 2006, when I was forced out of the University of Wisconsin by Republican politicians, I have been attempting to bring together people from different backgrounds, especially religious people, to question the so-called ?war on terror.? As an American Muslim, I am especially concerned that the Muslim-majority perspective on the ?war on terror? has been completely suppressed from mainstream media and even most alternative media. The majority of the world?s Muslims believe that the ?war on terror? is a hoax, being in fact a disguised war on Islam and Muslims, and that it was launched by a false flag attack committed not by ?radical Muslims,? but by the enemies of Islam and Muslims, on September 11th, 2001. Likewise, most if not all of the high-profile ?al-Qaeda? and ?ISIS? related attacks in the West are believed by most Muslims, including myself, to have been likely false flag events designed to legitimize the continuing murder of millions of Muslims all over the world. (Most of the 55 leading public intellectuals represented in my recent False Flag Trilogy agree with me, and cite facts to support their views.)
Unlike most of my fellow American Muslims, I have not been terrorized into silence. Yet everywhere I go, people attempt to silence me, slandering me and falsely attributing to me all sorts of views that I do not hold. They apparently are afraid of what will happen if ordinary Americans are ever exposed to the Muslim-majority view of the ?war on terror.?
Are the people of your social-justice-oriented congregation in Berkeley, home of the free speech movement, really afraid to hear what Muslims really think about the ?war on terror?? I find that hard to believe, given the warm reception I received last year at BFUU.
I would be happy to answer any questions about my work by email, Skype, or telephone. Feel free to email me any time, and we can set up a time to talk.
False Flag Trilogy:
Middle East Affairs and Islamic Studies expert guest at Press TV, Al-Alam, Al-Etejah, Russia Today, etc.