|Home||My Profile||Truth Blog||My Messages (0 )||Logout|
This article is posted for TruthJihad.com subscribers only. Please do not distribute. Thank you!
Was the Sutherland Springs church shooting “atheist terrorism”?
By Kevin Barrett, for American Free Press
When a crazy Muslim truck driver ran people down in New York, the New York Times headline screamed out: “8 Killed in ‘Act of Terror’ in Manhattan.” One week later, when a crazy atheist Air Force veteran massacred people in Sutherland Springs, Texas, the Times headline read: “Gunman Kills at Least 26 in Attack on Rural Texas Church.”
Why is one killer a “terrorist” while the other is only a “gunman”? The answer is obvious: The truck driver, Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, is nominally Muslim, while the church shooter, Devin Patrick Kelley, was an atheist. Clearly the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media are working hard to demonize Muslims as “terrorists.”
Atheists, however, are a protected category—like gays, Jews, and to some extent other minorities. So when someone from a category of people that harbors an animosity to Christianity (for example, atheists) commits a crime targeting Christians in a Christian house of worship, their atheism is barely mentioned! Nobody even asks whether Kelley’s “radicalization” that led him to target a church might have something to do with his atheist worldview. Nor does anyone wonder whether atheism, which denies that life has any inherent moral values or meaning, wonder whether such a philosophy might sometimes lead unstable people to do immoral things.
Those aware of the history of the MK Ultra mind control program and the Operation Gladio false flag terror campaign may wonder whether the real issue is not Saipov’s and Kelley’s religious or anti-religious worldview, but rather their possible manipulation by experts in fabricating Deep State violence. This is a legitimate avenue of inquiry. But since I have not yet seen strong evidence supporting the false flag hypothesis for either event, I will simply analyze the way the mainstream media propaganda apparatus is reporting each story, and explore what that reveals about the propagandists’ agenda.
The MSM’s reporting of the Saipov story strongly emphasized the “radical Islam” connection. The media focused on Saipov supposedly yelling “Allahu akbar” and demanding an ISIS flag for his hospital room. It suggested that Saipov was “radicalized” by ISIS propaganda videos he encountered on the internet.
But the reporting on the church massacre barely noted in passing that Kelley “liked” various atheist organizations on his FaceBook page. It did not suggest that he was an “atheist terrorist” who had been “radicalized.” Instead, the MSM simply took it for granted that he was crazy.
There is nothing whatsoever in Islam that makes Muslims harbor animosity toward pedestrians or bicyclists. From an Islamic perspective, Saipov’s actions are utterly nonsensical. Islam demands that even in times of all-out war, civilians must be protected.
But from an atheist perspective, Christians (and other religious people) are the enemy…or at least dangerously deluded believers in an enemy ideology. If a murderously angry atheist were going to “act out” ideologically, the first place he would shoot up would be a church. But nobody interprets the Sutherland Springs shooting this way. Why not?
The mainstream elite and intelligentsia in Western countries is overwhelmingly made up of actual and de facto atheists. They, and the institutions they control, commit mass murder every day. Today’s Godless elite are behind most of the fabricated “Islamic terrorism” in the headlines, which they deploy to justify their murderous looting all over the world. (About 32 million Muslims have been murdered in the 9/11 wars according to one expert, Dr. Gideon Polya, while more than 55 million civilians have been murdered in CIA and US military operations since World War II according to Noam Chomsky and Andre Vltchek.)
As Tony Cartalucci writes in “The Truth About Radical Islam”:
“The source of terrorism is not the Qu'ran — a book that few critics of Islam have even picked up let alone genuinely read — but rather a very easily traced money trail that leads to Washington and London. It is indeed the Western World that has created, branded, and marketed ‘radical Islam,’ which is — for all intents and purposes — a strictly political tool designed to provoke direct Western military interventions where possible, and fight conflicts by proxy whenever direct military intervention is not possible.”
The people who run the Western world are atheists, even though their ancestors were Jewish or Christian. And they are by far the biggest terrorists on planet Earth. They are working overtime to conquer the world and establish a “New World Order” —the atheist equivalent of an all-embracing global caliphate.
Yet just as a fish is not aware of the presence of water, few of us are conscious that we are swimming in a sea of blood shed by atheist terrorists. Indeed, the very concept of atheist terrorism — a commonplace 100 years ago — is now unthinkable.
This article is posted here for TruthJihad.com subscribers only. Please do not share. Best, Kevin
New Las Vegas shooting timeline makes even less sense
By Kevin Barrett, for American Free Press
Rarely do America’s mainstream newspapers evince skepticism towards official pronouncements about suspected false flag events. But the problems with the police timeline of the October 1 Las Vegas massacre are so egregious that even the Los Angeles Times couldn’t help but notice.
An October 9 Times article is headlined “Las Vegas gunman shot security guard a full six minutes before opening fire on concertgoers, police reveal.” The article, authored by three Times journalists, begins: “Police have dramatically changed their account of how the Las Vegas massacre began on Oct. 1, revealing Monday that the gunman shot a hotel security guard six minutes before opening fire on a country music concert — raising new questions about why police weren’t able to pinpoint the gunman’s location sooner.”
The previous official story held that the lone gunman, Stephen Paddock, fired from his 32nd floor hotel room on the crowd below from 10:05 to 10:15 p.m. Then at 10:15, using his surveillance cameras, he saw hotel security guard Jesus Campos in the hallway and unleashed a barrage of gunfire through the door, wounding Campos. Campos notified the authorities, who arrived shortly thereafter. But the police were apparently in no hurry to breach Paddock’s room and ensure the safety of the people below. They didn’t bother to break into Paddock’s room until 11:20, an hour later! When they finally did so, they discovered that Paddock was dead, supposedly from a self-inflicted gunshot.
The original timeline made no sense. Why would police linger for an hour outside the door of a mass shooter who had just killed more than 50 people and wounded hundreds—and who might still have guns and ammunition available with which to kill and wound hundreds more? Aren’t SWAT teams trained to take heroic action, risking their lives if necessary, to kick in doors and stop mass shootings?
It isn’t surprising that the Las Vegas Sheriff’s Department has seen fit to radically revise its original timeline. What is surprising, even shocking, is that the new timeline is even more absurd than the old one.
According to the new timeline, Paddock shot through his door, wounding Campos, at 9:59 p.m., six minutes before the mass shooting started. Campos must have immediately notified authorities. So by around 10 p.m., five minutes before the slaughter began, hotel security must have called 9-1-1 to report that someone had fired a burst of automatic gunfire on the 32nd floor. When reports of a massacre began rolling in shortly after 10:05, police should have already known which floor and which room the suspect was shooting from. Yet they didn’t bother to breach Paddock’s door till 11:20 p.m.!
Were the cops ordered to stand down—perhaps to allow the real perps to escape? Might the conveniently “suicided” Paddock have been a patsy?
The problematic Las Vegas timeline resembles the even more absurd official 9/11 timeline, which, as David Ray Griffin and others have shown, is riddled with inconsistencies and absurdities. On 9/11, we are told, the FAA and the military knew by around 8:15 a.m. that “hijackings” were underway. Yet there was no response from America’s air defenses even as planes hit the Twin Towers at 8:46 and 9:03, crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37, and plunged into the ground in Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:03.
My late friend Col. Robert Bowman, who flew more than 100 missions in Vietnam and headed the Star Wars Missile Defense Program under Presidents Ford and Carter, said he knew by the afternoon of September 11th that it was an inside job. The stand-down of our air defenses was the giveaway. Col. Bowman knew that every year over 100 commercial planes stray off course, and always find a fighter jet beside them within about ten minutes. The official 9/11 timeline, which claims that “hijacked” planes flew around the most heavily guarded airspace in the world for almost two hours without any air defense response, is an insult to the intelligence of every American.
The Las Vegas massacre timeline likewise insults our intelligence. Along with eyewitness and forensic evidence of multiple shooters, it suggests that we are not being told the truth about this event.
According to In Homeland Security, a voice of the security-industrial complex: “The October 1 massacre in Las Vegas will define a new normal for America. That much is certain. Americans had no choice but to accept post 9/11 heightened security measures at airports and longer travel times... Now, thanks to Stephen Paddock’s lone wolf shootings in Las Vegas, Americans certainly will need to accept heightened security measures when checking in to any hotel in the United States.”
Have we been hit by yet another Gladio B operation designed to terrorize us into giving up what is left of our freedom?
By Kevin Barrett, for American Free Press (reproduced here for Truth Jihad members only - please do not distribute)
In late August of 2016, an offensive, illegal image was planted — by a person or persons unknown — on Professor Anthony Hall’s Facebook page. The image portrayed a “white” man assaulting a “Jewish” man, alongside text reading: “There never was a ‘Holocaust,’ but there should have been, and, rest assured, there WILL be…” (The rest of the text is too vile to print here.)
The unsuspecting Professor Hall, traveling at the time, never saw the post. But B’nai B’rith did. (They were monitoring Dr. Hall’s Facebook page far more closely than Dr. Hall himself was.) The Israeli front group issued a flurry of statements vilifying Professor Hall and implying that he was responsible for the planted image. Canadian mainstream media outlets echoed B’nai B’rith’s libelous charges.
B’nai B’rith’s allies then unleashed a torrent of defamation against Professor Hall. On September 1, 2016 the President of the Canadian Jewish Civil Rights Association wrote to the University of Lethbridge falsely asserting that the horrendous words from the planted “kill all Jews” Facebook image came directly “from the lips” of Professor Tony Hall. Another letter to the Office of the University of Lethbridge President, copied to the Premier of Alberta and the Alberta Justice Minister, called Dr. Hall an “advocate for the murder of Jews.”
University of Lethbridge President Mike Mahon then suspended Professor Hall without pay and prohibited him from setting foot on campus. There were no hearings, no due process, no investigation…just a unilateral assertion by Mahon, unsupported by any evidence, that Hall might have violated the Alberta Human Rights Act.
Mahon himself, purporting to speak for the University, later filed a Human Rights Complaint against Professor Hall. Mahon argued that Hall might be guilty of a human rights violation because “Hall’s Facebook page had been used for virulent anti-Semitic comments.” (Mahon failed to mention that the virulent comments had been planted, unbeknownst to Hall, by Hall’s enemies.)
Mahan also charged Hall with “Inferring that Israelis, and hence Jewish individuals, were responsible for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.” But why is that any more bigoted than inferring that Saudis, and hence Muslim individuals, were responsible for the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, as the mainstream media does?
In fact, 34 million Muslims have been murdered, according to Dr. Gideon Polya, due to the 9/11-fueled Islamophobia that drives the 9/11 wars. Yet the Human Rights Complaint against Professor Hall asserts that anyone who rejects this genocidal Islamophobia, and the 9/11 official conspiracy theory behind it, is a bigot! The complaint insists that “acts of terrorism between 2001 to the present… were in fact committed and financed by Islamic terrorists.” By questioning that dubious proposition, the complainants assert, Dr. Hall somehow violated the Alberta Human Rights Act.
In fact, the individuals who called for the murder of all Jews were those who manufactured and planted the offending image on Professor Hall’s Facebook page. According to an investigation by Ben Garrison, a Jewish-Zionist false flag terrorist named Joshua Goldberg created the image. Unknown internet hackers then planted it to frame Professor Hall.
Goldberg and the hackers should be charged with incitement to murder and incitement to genocide. The hackers should also be charged with (conspiracy to commit) defamation of character; obstruction of justice; and providing of false evidence. Likewise, B’nai B’rith and the Canadian Jewish Civil Rights Association should be charged with defamation of character. All of these individuals and groups should wind up paying Professor Hall tens of millions of dollars in civil damages, on top of their prison sentences.
Unfortunately, it is far from certain that justice will prevail. Certain groups seem to have a license to commit frame-ups with impunity. After all, virtually every major “radical Muslim terror attack” since the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 has featured one or more blatant frame-ups. In almost all cases, passports or ID cards have been planted at the scene of the crime to inculpate the designated (Muslim) patsies.
On 9/11, the only thing left of the planes that supposedly crashed in New York and Shanksville were “hijackers’ passports” that miraculously turned up to identify the supposed perpetrators. Subsequent “Islamic terror attacks” including Charlie Hebdo, the follow-up 11/13/15 Paris attacks, and various vehicular homicides in London, Manchester, and elsewhere have all featured throw-down ID documents allowing police to instantly blame the designated scapegoats.
The Tsarnaev brothers were framed for the Boston bombings, despite ironclad photo evidence proving their innocence. A Pakistani couple was framed for the San Bernardino shooting, despite witness reports that three large white paramilitaries did it.
Are the same forces that frame “Muslim terrorists” also behind the frame-up of Professor Hall?
Here is my new article for publication in this coming week's American Free Press. It is published here for subscribers only, do not distribute.
Civil War Statues and “Public Myths”
By Kevin Barrett
For American Free Press
America is suffering from an epidemic of moral hysteria. All across the nation, angry mobs are targeting Civil War statues. The monument to Confederate General Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville—the flashpoint for the orchestrated violence I wrote about in my previous AFP column—is just one of the countless Confederate memorials slated for oblivion.
Here in Madison, Wisconsin, our cranky Jewish aging-ex-hippie mayor, Paul Soglin, recently announced that two Confederate memorials would be removed from Forest Hill Cemetery. "There should be no place in our country for bigotry, hatred or violence against those who seek to unite our communities and our country," Soglin solemnly intoned.
My late uncle, Tim Barrett, must be rolling over in his grave. A lifelong Madisonian, Uncle Tim was a fanatical Civil War buff. (Our ancestors include Union soldiers.) Tim would drive all over the country, sleeping in his car, to visit battlefields and monuments. Tim took took part in many re-enactments of Civil War battles. He undoubtedly visited the Confederate monuments in Forest Hill Cemetery, as well as the Union monuments at Camp Randall.
Tim was a partisan of Lincoln and the Union. He knew that many Northern soldiers believed they were fighting to end slavery, and Tim honored that belief. But he knew the reality was more complex.
Tim also honored the Confederate soldiers, who believed (with some justification) that they were fighting for freedom, not slavery. Unlike many Americans today, my late Uncle Tim could see that both sides had good reasons as well as bad reasons for doing what they did. Tim achieved a certain level of detachment from his pro-Union anti-slavery sympathies. He was able to view the war as a complex and nuanced tragedy. So Tim considered both Robert E. Lee and Abraham Lincoln as flawed heroes. He would have been equally appalled by anyone trying to tear down statues of either one.
That kind of nuance and complexity is conspicuously absent from our dumbed-down America of 2017. Self-righteous ignoramuses insist on seeing everything as a black-vs.-white, good-vs.-evil struggle. If you have any sympathy at all for the losers, you are an evil, no-good, very bad person who likely deserves to be clobbered with such weaponized epithets as “racist” and “Nazi,” and let’s throw in “anti-Semite” and “conspiracy theorist” for good measure. Yet the people hurling those terms usually know very little about the Civil War, World War II, the history of Jewish communities’ interactions with non-Jews, the JFK assassination, 9/11, or whatever topic set them off.
The people who hurl such weaponized words have been brainwashed by the likes of Philip Zelikow, a self-professed expert on “the creation and maintenance of public myths.” Zelikow, who personally authored the entire 9/11 Commission Report in chapter outline before the Commission had even convened, defines “public myths” (a.k.a. “public presumptions”) as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.” He is especially interested in “particularly ‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events” that “take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene.”
Zelikow argues that “for the generation who fought World War II, ‘Munich’ is an example of such a public presumption.” What he means is that the word Munich conjures up the whole good-guys-vs.-bad-guys cartoon version of World War II, by demonizing the “appeaser” Neville Chamberlain, and implicitly comparing anyone who opposes any American/Israeli war of aggression as such an appeaser. In other words, Munich is a weaponized epithet of the war party that draws its power from the depths of public myth.
Another such weaponizable public myth, for Zelikow, is “beliefs about slavery and the Civil War.” Like the cartoon version of World War II, the myth that the Civil War was about slavery legitimizes federal power and federal wars of aggression, by forging a ludicrous good-guys-vs.-bad-guys fairy tale and inviting us to identify with the good guys and revile the bad guys (and, by extension, our nation’s enemy du jour.)
Paul Craig Roberts recently published an excellent article entitled “How We Know the So-Called ‘Civil War’ Was Not Over Slavery.” Anyone interested in thinking about history, rather than drooling like Pavlov’s dog at the commands of the likes of Philip Zelikow, should read it.
The myths that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves, that World War II was “the good war,” and that the endless “War on Terror” is a legitimate response to 9/11, are all very similar. That is not an accident. People like Zelikow scripted 9/11 based on their studies of the public myths of the two earlier wars.
(Zelikow quotes are from “Thinking About Political History,” Miller Center Report, Winter 1999.)
Jim Fetzer asked me for a contribution to a book he is editing on Charlottesville. I sent him the article below. It is posted here for TruthJihad.com members only. Do not post or distribute.
Gladio Meets Cointelpro in Charlottesville: A New “Strategy of Tension” Against Economic Populism?
By Kevin Barrett
(Portions of this article were first published by American Free Press.)
America’s liberal mainstream media, along with the left-leaning foundation-funded pseudo-alternative media, are blaming violence in Charlottesville on the so-called alt-right. According to the dominant narrative, crazed neo-Nazi hooligans descended on a quiet college town and started beating people up and running people over. So let us all engage in an Orwellian two minutes of hate. Death to the alt-right and everything it stands for! And death to Trump for not joining the Orwellian hatefest!
When a violent, galvanizing, hyper-mediated event occurs, and the mainstream immediately tells us who to blame, I immediately think of 9/11 and the subsequent series of false flag outrages. As I wrote in the immediate aftermath of the Charlottesville clashes: “The recent ultraviolence in Charlottesville bears some of the hallmarks of a contrived event: It was shocking, spectacular, hyped by mainstream media, and seemingly designed to cast blame on a demonized ‘other’ (the alt-right white nationalist movement). Additionally, it could be seen as furthering a ‘strategy of tension’ pitting left against right, multiculturalism against racial nationalism, Bernie Sanders extremists against Donald Trump extremists, and so on.”
Hyper-mediated violent events like the Charlottesville spectacle are increasingly being scrutinized and subjected to a hermeneutic of suspicion. In my recent False Flag Trilogy (www.FalseFlagTrilogy.blogspot.com) I brought together 55 leading public intellectuals to analyze several alleged radical Islamic terror attacks committed in 2015 and 2016. The majority agreed that these events—among them the Paris attacks of January and November 2015, the Copenhagen Valentine’s Day attack and Brussels Airport attack of the same year, the San Bernardino shooting, the Orlando shooting of June 2016, the Nice Truck attack and Munich shopping mall shootings of July 2016—left a trail of evidence suggesting that the Gladio program is still alive and well.
Operation Gladio, a Pentagon program run through NATO, pursued a “strategy of tension” in Cold War era Europe. Infiltrating and manipulating both right-wing and left-wing groups, Deep State operators orchestrated terrorism and violence in an effort to discredit opposition to NATO-bankster rule and frighten voters into supporting the Establishment. Swiss professor Daniele Ganser and other researchers have shown that virtually all of the “left wing terrorism” in Europe during the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s was actually perpetrated by Operation Gladio. Likewise, most of the “right wing violence” of that era was also a Gladio product.
Deep State “strategies of tension” operate on several levels. First and most obviously, they incite fear, thereby nudging the public towards conformity and submission to authoritarian rule. They also manipulate public opinion by casting the Establishment’s opponents, whether on the left or the right, as violent, dangerous extremists. (The Charlottesville spectacle seemed designed to portray Trump supporters as racist Nazis, while simultaneously convincing conservatives that the Bernie Sanders left is not just insufferably arrogant and intolerant, but also vicious and violent.)
Charlottesville polarized the population into two opposing camps. It reoriented the entire political discussion—or, rather, the shouting match—around race and identity politics. Charlottesville offered an image of Trump supporters and Sanders supporters screaming at each other and beating each other up, followed by an even more disturbing image of a Trump supporter committing a vehicular attack on Sanders supporters. Lost in all of this was the obvious message of the 2016 election: Angry working-class people are flocking to the messages of people like Trump and Sanders NOT because of race or identity politics, but because they are angry at billionaires and other elites, and want a better economic deal if not an outright revolution. But Charlottesville intervened, and now the whole nation is talking about ID politics rather than economic justice.
George Lakoff has aptly observed that the secret of political power lies more in controlling what people are talking about than what they are saying. Just as the command “don’t think of an elephant” elicits thoughts of an elephant, a media blitz of spectacular, gripping, violent imagery focusing on hatred and anger around race and identity will get people thinking (and more importantly, emoting) about race and identity. And the supposed anti-hate side may very well end up hating as much their supposed pro-hate enemies. “Down with hate! We must hate hatred with every fiber in our being!” intones the Orwellian announcer during the MSM’s officially-sanctioned two minutes of hate.
The opposite of hate—love—would entail caring about people as individual human beings, beyond considerations of ethnicity or ideology. This would lead us to want to take better care of those who are being left by the wayside (just as we would want to take care of our own loved ones if they were in such miserable circumstances). The only way to do that would be to restructure society for the benefit of the bottom 50% rather than the top .0001 percent. This is precisely what the billionaire ruling elite does not want. To prevent love from breaking out, they stir up mass hatred in a divide-and-conquer strategy calculated to distract and deceive.
So Charlottesville appears to be a monumental diversion, a misdirection ploy worthy of an Orwellian stage magician. The riveting spectacle sucked in all eyeballs, while sucking all the oxygen out of the room. Trump and Sanders voters—rather than joining together to drain the swamp, confiscate the fortunes of the billionaires, institute honest and publicly-financed elections, nationalize the banking system, make internet monopolies transparently-operated public utilities, revitalize unions while stopping immigration’s downward pressure on wages, reduce the massive waste and fraud endemic to military spending, revitalize America’s decaying infrastructure, and generally pump money from Wall Street to Main Street—have now been cast as violent lunatics bent on beating each other up and running each other down in the streets.
It is all too convenient. The 2016 presidential elections delivered a slap to the face of America’s Deep State elite. Left wing populist Bernie Sanders trounced Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries, and could only be kept out of the White House through election fraud, as copiously documented by Richard Charnin. Right wing populist Donald Trump won an overwhelming fraud-proof victory in the Republican primaries, then defied polls and pundits by winning the general election.
Populism is surging. Elites are panicking. The mainstream media’s stranglehold over public opinion is eroding. Could Cointelpro, a domestic US equivalent of Operation Gladio, be infiltrating both white nationalist groups and their antifa opposition? Undoubtedly. Could Deep State operators be fomenting violence in an effort to discredit populism? Quite possibly.
America’s self-appointed Platonic Guardians are scrambling to adjust to the new reality. They appear to be resorting to ever-more-extreme measures in a desperate effort to shore up their dominance.
One of their primary targets is free speech on the internet. The Trump-Sanders phenomenon was the result of 15 years of alternative media chipping away at consensus reality in general and the official story of 9/11 in particular. A deep sentiment of mistrust now pervades the populace. More and more people are beginning to suspect that the entire political dog-and-pony show is a ruse whose main purpose is to allow the super-rich to keep right on picking our pockets.
As subversive truth spreads, the Platonic Guardians and the Deep State they rule are desperately seeking ways to muzzle internet-based alternative media. During the past several months, their pet CIA search engine, Google, has been systematically tweaked in an effort to hide alternative news websites from the general public. This has resulted in a 60% decline in readership for such truth-telling websites as GlobalResearch.ca. The Deep State is also trying to cut truth-tellers’ financial lifelines by such means as removing American Free Press’s credit card processing, nuking my GoFundMe platform, orchestrating the suspension of truth-seeking academicians like Anthony Hall and Joy Karega from universities, banning books from Amazon, removing alternative media from YouTube advertising programs, and otherwise trying to starve truth-seekers into submission.
But these attacks on alternative media can only be effective to the extent that public opinion acquiesces. To overcome America’s traditional affinity for free speech, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the Deep State needs to convince the public that the internet is populated by dangerous, violent extremists who must be muzzled in the name of public safety and so-called homeland security.
And that is where events like Charlottesville come in. Observers have noted that heavily militarized police and National Guard units initially showed up in force — then conveniently disappeared just before the violence was incited. And why were demonstrators allowed to carry weapons? Normally police prevent marchers from carrying objects that could be used as fighting implements. Yet Charlottesville demonstrators carried pepper spray, clubs, weaponizable torches, and other tools of mayhem.
Another suspicious aspect of the event was its “Nazi” aura. The mainstream and foundation-funded alternative media were especially outraged by the Judeophobic chants of some of the pro-Robert E. Lee statue demonstrators. (The media’s most-cited offensive chant was “Jew will not replace us!”)
The demonstrators’ anti-Jewish chants guaranteed wall-to-wall negative media coverage—because the media is heavily populated, if not actually dominated, by Jewish people who are highly sensitive to what they (incorrectly and offensively) call “anti-Semitism.” Could this element of the demonstrations have been orchestrated for precisely that purpose? Clearly there is a lot of synthetic Judeophobia out there. As The New York Times reported on March 23, 2017, “A monthslong wave of bomb threats against Jewish institutions in the United States that prompted evacuations, heightened security and fears of rising anti-Semitism (sic) gave way to an unexpected twist on Thursday. The person responsible for many of the threats, law enforcement officials said, was half a world away, in Israel, a Jewish teenager.” The Times failed to report that along with prompting evacuations and fears, the false flag threats also prompted the banning from Amazon of hundreds of history books. Mainstream media also failed to report that the phony Judeophobia scare fueled the 2017 campaign to censor the internet, which included Google tweaking its algorithms to hide alternative news sources, Youtube de-monetizing alternative videos, and Facebook sabotaging its own advertisers whose content it deems politically incorrect.
The Israeli-American false flag terror culprit and bane of Jewish Community Centers, a certain Michael Ron David Kadar, was reported to be the nephew of Mordechai Kedar, “a leading trainer of Shabak agents” who “teaches Arabic at Bar Ilan University and is one of the most vicious, Arabophobic academics in Israel.” Shabak, better known as Shin Bet, is the notorious Israeli internal security service implicated in thousands of cases of torture. It has recently been aggressively recruiting “cyber ninjas.” Was Kadar a false flag cyber-ninja tasked with spearheading a terror campaign against Jewish institutions in the US in order to smear Israel’s enemies as dangerous “anti-Semites”? His ability to evade detection for months while committing hundreds or thousands of cyber-crimes suggests a professional operation. And Kadar’s too-convenient excuse—“a brain tumor made me do it”—does not pass the smell test. More likely his Uncle Mordechai, alongside Shin Bet colleagues, unleashed the wave of false flag terrorism, with young Michael set up as the “patsy with a ready-made excuse.”
The Zionist creation of fake Nazi enemies plays into a broader Hegelian strategy pursued by the Euro-American Deep State. By creating a synthetic wave of Nazi/Confederate white nationalism on the right, and a counter-wave of antifa extremism on the left, the Deep State is pursuing a form of political Hegelianism aptly described by Anthony Sutton as “Right and Left: A Control Device.” Sutton explains: “For Hegelians, the State is almighty, and seen as ‘the march of God on earth.’ Indeed, a State religion. Progress in the Hegelian State is through contrived conflict: the clash of opposites makes for progress. If you can control the opposites, you dominate the nature of the outcome.” Sutton argues that both communism and fascism were created by Deep State forces funded by British and American oligarchs, and that the ensuing left-versus-right clash was orchestrated to concentrate more and more power in the hands of those oligarchs. The same strategy may be at work in 2017 America, with Charlottesville serving as the PR launch for a new era of left-vs.-right theatrics whose main purpose is to nip populism in the bud and cement oligarchical rule.
Could the people who benefit the most from “populist” violence—the anti-populist elite—be up to their usual tricks? Other contributors to this book have uncovered evidence supporting that hypothesis. Now it is up to us to spread the truth and nullify the psy-op, by redirecting the conversation away from race and identity politics, and back towards brotherly- and sisterly-love and economic justice…in other words, away from hate, and back towards love.
Here is my new exclusive AFP article - for TruthJihad.com subscribers only, please do not distribute in any way!
When America Breaks Its Word, It Loses Credibility
By Kevin Barrett, for American Free Press
Are promises still printed on paper? If so, US government promises aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
Case in point: The Iran nuclear deal. Iran is holding up its end. The US isn’t. Instead, Uncle Sam is switching his rationale for sanctions from “nuclear technology” to “rocket science and support for Hezbollah.” Rather than ending the sanctions as solemnly promised, in return for Iran’s rolling back its nuclear program, the US is maintaining them.
The nuclear deal says nothing about rockets or Hezbollah. Iran has every right to develop its space program and support the Palestinian resistance. Nothing in the nuclear treaty says otherwise. Bottom line: Iran is keeping its word. The US isn’t.
Such arrogant lying, deceit, and subterfuge is typical of the way the US does business. The only nation on earth that’s worse is America’s master, Israel…which owns Congress and is the real force behind America’s otherwise nonexistent “problem” with Iran.
Failure to keep one’s word is not a good long-term success strategy. Whatever short-term gains accrue from lying and promise-breaking will be erased in the medium- and long-terms, as word gets around that “this is not a good person to deal with.”
Why would any country trust the USA? Consider just a few examples from the long list of American betrayals and broken promises:
*Endless promises to Native Americans enshrined in solemn treaties that were torn up whenever it was convenient.
*The promise to Gorbachev that if he ended the Cold War and pulled out of Eastern Europe, NATO would not move into any of the former Russian East Bloc satellites.
*The promise to Qaddafi that if he handed over his WMD program the US would normalize relations and consider him a “good guy” instead of a “bad guy.”
In all of these cases and many more, American White Man spoke with forked tongue. What did the Indians get for laying down their arrows? They got shafted. What did Russia get for freeing the East Bloc? They got encroached upon and surrounded by NATO first-strike nuclear systems right on their doorstep. What did Qaddafi get for handing over his nuclear and chemical programs to the US? He got sodomized to death by an American-sponsored al-Qaeda foot soldier.
No wonder North Korea says “to hell with the USA, we’re going to build nuclear weapons capable of incinerating Washington, DC or die in the attempt.” North Koreans remember how the US exterminated millions of their people and destroyed every single one of their cities, all without batting an eyelash or feeling an ounce of pity for the victims. The US even blanketed North Korea with biological weapons, as Dave Chaddock explains in This Must Be the Place: How the US Waged Germ Warfare in the Korean War and Denied It Ever Since.
America doesn’t just lie to the world. The US government also routinely breaks its explicit and implicit promises to its own citizens. For example, the Bill of Rights is a solemn promise to respect freedom of speech, religion, habeus corpus, no searches without a warrant, and more. Yet the government singles out some religious groups for persecution (Muslims, Christian patriots) while giving others special privileges (Zionist Jews). It imprisons people for their political views (Sami al-Arian, Tarek Mehanna, Aafia Siddiqui) and unconstitutionally spies on everyone on earth, while routinely kidnapping, torturing, and murdering people without even charging them with any crime.
Neoconservative Zionists like Micheal Ledeen routinely quote Machievelli’s dictum “It is better to be feared than loved.” But a prince who tyrannizes others while routinely breaking promises, in his lame attempts to incite fear, may end up eliciting disgust, disdain, contempt, and desire for vengeance.
There have been times when America’s word meant something. For much of our history, the Bill of Rights has been taken seriously. George Washington’s promise that America would not meddle in foreign quarrels commanded almost unanimous respect until the bankster-driven World Wars of the 20th century. JFK’s 1962 promise to the Russians to pull US Jupiter nuclear missiles out of Turkey, in return for the Russians pulling theirs out of Cuba, was respected, saving the world from nuclear holocaust. And the US dollar was “good as gold” until Nixon broke that promise in 1973.
But in recent decades, especially since 9/11, the US has become a mentocracy – a government of lies. It as if the Israel Mossad motto “By way of deception thou shalt do war” has become the new American national slogan. (The Israeli coup d’état on 9/11/2001 may be partly responsible for this trend.)
Was President Trump’s promise to “make America great again” sincere? If so, Trump should expose and roll back the 9/11 coup…and start speaking truth, honoring commitments, and restoring America’s squandered credibility.
For Truth Jihad members only! Please do not distribute.
Architect/attorney David Noble: "I have explained to Trump that Israel did 9/11..."
By Kevin Barrett, for American Free Press
(My radio interview with David Noble is posted at https://www.patreon.com/DrKevinBarrett )
David Noble, an architect and attorney from southern California, campaigned for Donald Trump. Noble is now involved in another “Trump campaign” – a campaign to inform the President that Israel was behind the attacks of September 11, 2001.
In a series of 28 letters to President Trump, David Noble cites evidence that 9/11 was a neocon-Zionist coup d'etat. Noble’s letters also address Israel’s horrific behavior in other areas, including the false flag massacre of USS Liberty sailors in 1967, the systematic racism built into Israel’s legal code, the Zionists’ swindling of billions of dollars from US taxpayers, and their war crimes and genocide against the Palestinians. Showing Trump pictures of Israeli atrocities, including numerous murders of helpless children by Israeli forces, Noble asks the President: “What if Cuba occupied Florida and did this to you? What if this were Mar-a-Lago?”
In a recent letters David Noble has urged Donald Trump to open a real 9/11 investigation, pointing out that this would quickly lead to criminal charges against former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who is currently leading an investigation of the President and selected associates. (Mueller was appointed FBI chief exactly one week before 9/11, and subsequently presided over the cover-up.)
But Noble hastens to add that this issue is of such existential importance to America that it transcends partisan politics: “If you don’t go after the people who did it, they’ll laugh in your face, they’ll be proud of it. They’ll be full of chutzpah: ‘We can get away with it! You know exactly what we did, and you’re not going to do a damn thing about it. And what’s more, we’re going to do something even worse tomorrow.’”
Noble’s letters refer to Trump’s television news interview on September 11 2001, during which the interviewer asked: “There are a great deal of questions about whether the damage and the ultimate destruction of the buildings was caused by airplanes, by architectural defect, or possibly by bombs, or possibly aftershocks?”
Trump replied: “It wasn’t architectural defect. The World Trade Center was always known as a very, very strong building. Don’t forget, that building took a big bomb in the basement (in 1993). Now the basement is the most vulnerable place, because that is your foundation. And I got to see that area about three or four days after it took place, because one of my structural engineers took me for a tour, because he did the building. And I said, ‘I can’t believe it.’ The building was standing solid. And half of the columns were blown out. This was an unbelievably powerful building. And if you know anything about structure, it was one of the first buildings that was built from the outside. The steel – the reason the World Trade Center had such narrow windows is that in between all the windows, you had steel on the outside of the building … you had heavy I-beams. When I first looked at it, I couldn’t believe it, because there was a hole in the steel … I happen to think that they had not only a plane, but they had bombs that exploded almost simultaneously.”
Atty. Noble wrote to Trump on June 12 of this year:
“It became immediately obvious to you that explosives were used, and the official story is therefore a fraud. (See youtube video ‘Trump saw on 9/11/2001: bombs were used in WTC.’) If Mr. Mueller had done his job, the evidence would have been preserved, there would have been indictments, prosecutions and convictions of 9/11 perpetrators. But not under his direction. Now he is investigating your team and you for who knows what? To get your loyalty to the 9/11 lie so there never will be any investigation and prosecution of perpetrators and co-conspirators, including himself and others?
“We think if you appoint a truly independent 9/11 Special Prosecutor, their ‘witch hunt’ may implode. Even if not, we need to face the 9/11 Truth issue before this festering wound on our civilization continues to infect us with more global ‘war on (of) terror’ that was planned by the PNAC group, the GW Bush Administration, beginning with 9/11, to take out seven countries in five years, (‘regime change’), as General Wesley Clark (ret.) has so articulately witnessed.”
In a 9/11 Ground Zero interview with Stephan Bachenheimer on 9/13/2001, Donald Trump said of America’s leaders: “They have to find out exactly what the cause was, who did it, and they have to go after these people because there is no other choice…Americans deserve to know what really happened.”
Let’s hope Trump listens to David Noble – and to his own wise words spoken almost 16 years ago.
By Kevin Barrett, for American Free Press (published here for TruthJihad.com members reading only – please do not distribute in any way)
Wells Fargo is one of America’s sleaziest and most disreputable big banks. Their deceptive credit card pitches contain small-print clauses allowing them to suddenly jack up their “introductory rates” and hit you with usurious 30%-plus interest.
So it doesn’t really surprise me that Wells Fargo has canceled AFP’s credit card processing account because some billionaire banker somewhere doesn’t like some of the books AFP sells. And it is shocking, but hardly surprising, to learn that the whole banking industry is trying to put AFP out of business by adding it to a credit-card-processing blacklist.
A spokesman for the blacklisters said the reason for this financial war is that AFP sells “racist and anti-Semitic books,” namely those by Michael Collins Piper. Naturally he hasn’t even read any of Piper’s books! If he had, he would know that there was never a single racist bone in Mike Piper’s body.
Let’s define our terms here. “Racist and anti-Semitic” is a redundant expression. “Anti-Semitism” is a form of racism holding that Jews are biologically inferior because they are a “Semitic” people related to Arabs. (Actually, neither Jews nor Arabs are a race; Judaism is a religion professed by people from many races and cultures; while “Arabs” are simply the many different kinds of people, ranging from Sudanese blacks to blond-haired blue-eyed Syrians and Lebanese, who happen to speak Arabic.)
The pseudo-scientific racist theory known as “anti-Semitism” was popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Hitler and the Nazis bought into it. But since World War II the anti-Jewish part of it has largely disappeared. It is Arabs, not Jews, who are the main victims of this kind of racism today. Ironically, the country with the worst anti-Semitic (anti-Arab) racism is the state of Israel.
As for Mike Piper’s books, they contain no racial hatred or bigotry of any kind.
Admittedly they are critical of certain aspects of Jewish culture, specifically the ruthless tribalism that prevails among some Jewish-Zionist elites, especially those that work with the criminal underworld. That is cultural critique, not racism.
I am highly critical of the segment of the Arab-Muslim political elite that runs “Saudi” Arabia. That does not make me an anti-Arab or anti-Muslim bigot.
Freedom means nothing if we are not free to critique the culture and politics of the various power elites that rule our world. Michael Collins Piper saw the rising power of Jewish-Zionist elites in the USA and discussed the issue reasonably and rationally – if sometimes passionately – in an evidence-based fashion, without any reference to or interest in “race.” His investigations into such issues as the JFK assassination and 9/11 were ahead of their time. It is a national scandal, and a symptom of our national decline, that the whole banking establishment can wage an economic war aimed at the suppression of Piper’s books – without a peep of protest from the ACLU and the supposedly free-speech-supporting mainstream media.
The economic assault on AFP is just the latest salvo in what is becoming an all-out Zionist war on free speech. Professor William Robinson’s book We Will Not Be Silenced: The Academic Repression of Israel’s Critics covers several Zionist attempts to quash academic freedom.
Now they are targeting booksellers, not just academics. When I was driven from the academy for questioning 9/11, I assumed I would be free to sell books and articles and solicit donations to support my independent scholarship and radio broadcasts. How could such activities ever be quashed? After all, we still have the First Amendment, right?
Unfortunately, the Constitution only limits the power of government, not the corporate sector. As private monopolies gobble up entire industries, grabbing as much power as governments but without any of the transparency or responsibilities, they have begun to insist that we toe their ideological line, on pain of expulsion from the economy. A few months ago Amazon banned hundreds of history books. At about the same time, my main fundraising platform and database (GoFundMe) nuked my account and stole more than $1,000. Various FaceBook accounts, including the Nation of Islam’s, have been frozen or shut down for political reasons. Now AFP is being blacklisted.
To buy and sell information, we will soon be microchipped with a “Mark of the Beast” guaranteeing that our views are inoffensive to the powers-that-be. Violators will be banned from economic transactions. They will still be free – free to starve.
Such evil, un-American acts of political censorship are exactly what we should expect from the too-big-to-fail financial pharaohs who seized the reins of power in America in the Federal Reserve coup d’état of 1913. The lesson is clear: If we want to preserve what’s left of freedom in America, we need to overthrow the banksters in a Second American Revolution.
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.”