Home My Profile Truth Blog My Messages (0 ) Logout
   

Paypal

B'nai Brith Canada thinks my JFK assassination interview is "anti-Semitic"

On 2016-06-07 23:00:46, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]

B'nai Brith Canada sent out a press release stating:

B?nai Brith Investigation: A so-called Jewish group has links to a White Supremacist Hate Site

By Aidan Fishman
B?nai Brith Canada
Campus Affairs Coordinator

A group that calls itself Independent Jewish Voices (IJV), and passes itself off as an organization that speaks on behalf of Jewish Canadians, promotes Holocaust denial through social media, a B?nai Brith investigation reveals.

Postings on the group?s official Twitter and Facebook accounts have been directing followers to articles from the white supremacist hate site Veterans Today. One article in particular falsely asserts that no more than 1-million Jews were killed by Nazi Germany and characterizes modern antisemitism as a natural reaction to Israeli policies. The article was also promoted online by Sid Shniad, a B.C. resident who serves as IJV?s co-chair and official spokesperson.

Both the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Law Poverty Center have denounced Veterans Today as a white supremacist hate site, replete with false accusations of Jewish responsibility for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the assassination of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy, and the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings.

- - -

The press release linked my article:

Press TV: Johnson, Dulles, Mossad plotted Kennedy murder
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/05/10/presstv-jfk/

Here is my response emailed to afishman@bnaibrith.ca :


Hello Aidan,

I?m sorry you were displeased by my Press TV interview on the JFK assassination, in which I mentioned possible Israeli complicity almost as an afterthought, after blaming various non-Jewish groups and individuals much more forcefully.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/05/10/presstv-jfk/

I would have thought that since the US is just as demographically Christian as Israel is Jewish, I was far more guilty of anti-Christian bigotry in blaming Dulles, Johnson, the CIA, and the US military-industrial complex.

Can you explain to me why primarily blaming a Christian nation and its Christian leaders for a crime, while adding that a Jewish leader and Jewish state may also have been involved, amounts to anti-Jewish bigotry? If not, your accusation of anti-Semitism is specious and libelous.

I would be happy to discuss this with you, and either hear your case or accept your apologies. Please feel free to call me between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. Central, or let me know what is a good time and number to call you.

Best

Kevin Barrett
608-583-----




Interview with Iranian news agency

On 2016-05-23 13:43:02, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]

- How do you see the essentiality of the day of Quds in light of the current regional upheavals in the Middle East?

Quds Day reminds us that the liberation of Palestine is the single most unifying issue among Muslims, and the key to achieving peace in the Middle East and the world.

- Many are of the idea that the freedom seeking character of Imam Khomeini prompted him to designate al-Quds day, what is your opinion?

Imam Khomeini was a visionary leader who embodied the true Islamic principles of standing up for justice and struggling against oppression. He liberated Iran from the tyrannical foreign occupation of the USA, and also sought to help liberate Palestine from the tyrannical oppression of the Zionists. Imam Khomeini advocated pan-Islamic unity, and pan-Islamic resistance to imperialism and Zionism. Al-Quds day reminds us that his work is unfinished: The political unification of Muslims for the cause of justice and resistance to oppression has not yet been accomplished, nor has the liberation of Palestine. Every year, on the last Friday of Ramadan, al-Quds day reminds us to rededicate ourselves to these noble objectives.

- If Imam Khomeini did not commence the Islamic Revolution, how would the state of oppressed people around the world including the Palestinians be?

The Islamic revolution brought Islam into the liberation struggle of oppressed people all over the world. Prior to the Revolution, Islam had been a factor in various anti-colonial and pro-justice movements, but they were generally isolated. The Islamic revolution announced that not only was the Islamic Awakening here to stay, but also that Islamic ideals of justice and struggle against oppression would join forces with larger worldwide struggles. And the most important of these, especially in the Muslim world, is the struggle of the Palestinians. Since the Islamic Revolution, resistance to Zionism has become increasingly identified with these Islamic ideals, as the secular Palestinian Authority has become weak and corrupt, while Islamic resistance groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad have moved to the forefront of the struggle. It is unlikely that these Islamic resistance groups would be playing such a prominent role had it not been for the Islamic Revolution. This is one reason why the Zionists see Iran and its Islamic Revolution, with its ideals of pan-Islamism and anti-Zionism, as their most formidable enemy

- Given the previous question, how do you see the role of the serving Iranian leader regarding the world oppressed people specially the Palestinians?

In a time when the vast majority of world leaders are slaves of the pro-Zionist New World Order bankers, colluding in the oppression of their own people and the people of the world, Iran?s Supreme Leader is an exception and an inspiration. His steadfastness in resisting pressure from the forces of empire and Zionism, while helping Iran achieve steady progress economically, educationally and technologically, is a feat matched by few if any global leaders of the 21st century. Such patience, tenacity and wisdom will also be the hallmarks of the long-term project for the complete liberation of Palestine.

Interview for book to be published in early 2017

On 2016-05-14 14:07:22, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (1) ] [ link ]

I just submitted an interview for a book due out from a British publisher in early 2017. Please note that this, like everything at this private blog, is copyrighted material, posted here for the eyes of TruthJihad.com subscribers only! So please do not re-post any of this.

INTERVIEW FOR BOOK PROJECT

You have become well known for your views on 9-11. Can you sum up what you think happened that day?

9/11 was a coup d??tat by the neoconservatives, who are ultra-Zionist, ultra-militarist, ultra-machievellian followers of the political philosopher Leo Strauss. The intellectual authors of the crime included such people as Paul Wolfwowitz, who succeeded Paul Nitze as top US strategist; Philip Zelikow, the self-described specialist in ?the construction and maintenance of public myths? who wrote the 9/11 Commission Report in chapter outline before the Commission had even convened; and Edward Luttwak, author of the book Coup d?Etat: A Practical Handbook, which served for decades as the how-to guide for the planners of what would become September 11th.

All three of those individuals, and about 90% of the other leading neoconservatives, are Zionist-extremist Jews. The overriding strategic objective of 9/11 was ? as the 1995 Clean Break document put it ? to make sure that ?Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.? By ?transcending its foes,? the authors, including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, meant that Israel would trick the USA and the West into invading or destabilizing those foes. The plan was to ?redraw the map of the Middle East? in accordance with the Oded Yinon plan to destroy Israel?s unfriendly neighbors by imposing regime change on them, balkanizing them along ethnic and sectarian lines, or otherwise disabling them.

And that is what 9/11 accomplished. The ?seven countries in five years? targeted by 9/11 (as explained by General Wesley Clark) were the seven leading threats to Israel. As a leading neocon told Clark after 9/11, ?We're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.?

They destroyed Iraq, with the American occupation allowing Israelis to assassinate most of Iraq?s scientific and intellectual leadership while staging false flag bombings to start a Sunni-Shia civil war designed to smash the country into three pieces. They are now destroying Syria in similar fashion. They destabilized Lebanon by assassinating former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri with an Israeli mini-nuke (the same weapon used in the Bali bombing and perhaps in the demolition of the World Trade Center) while falsely blaming Syria. They destroyed Libya with their al-CIA-duh mercenaries and NATO bombing. They destroyed Somalia by sending their Ethiopian proxies to annihilate the first and last effective government Somalia ever had, the ICU. They destroyed Sudan, splitting off the resource-rich south and handing it to Israel to pillage. And they still yearn to destroy Iran.

For the intellectual authors of the 9/11 coup d??tat, the ?New Pearl Harbor? they were openly calling for, the destruction of those and other countries ? and the massive degradation of the now morally as well as fiscally bankrupt USA ? was a small price to pay for enhancing the strategic position of Israel.

Philip Zelikow himself, who probably co-wrote the script for 9/11, gave the game away in a speech at the University of Virginia on September 10th, 2002:

"I?ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 ? it?s the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don?t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn?t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.?

Hating Israel?s Muslim enemies, murdering them en masse, and destroying their countries to protect the Zionist occupation of Palestine became a much more "popular sell? after Israel blew up the World Trade Center and falsely blamed it on Arabs and Muslims.

The 9/11 coup was conducted using the standard ?drill goes live? scenario that is almost always used in big false flag operations. Webster Tarpley has shown that 9/11 was piggybacked on no less than 46 drills, war games and terror exercises. More than twenty of these were actually running on the morning of 9/11, the biggest pre-planned National Security Special Event Day in history. Two of the exercises running on 9/11 envisioned ?planes into buildings? terrorist attack scenarios.

Why did Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other hardliners go along with an Israeli attack on America? The neocon-Zionist coup plotters convinced some hard-line US strategists to join their operation, using the pretext that a New Pearl Harbor would allow a ?New American Century? of global dominance. The leading neocon think tank, Project for a New American Century (PNAC) issued a document called ?Rebuilding America?s Defenses? in September, 2001. That document openly called for a ?New Pearl Harbor,? while rewriting the earlier Israel-oriented Clean Break document with a pro-US-empire spin.

The coup plotters created the illusion of hijacked planes crashing into buildings. Though the details are disputed, the simplest way they might have done this would have been to take over actual passenger flights using remote control ?hijack termination? systems developed by Rabbi Dov Zakheim?s companies. (Zakheim was the Pentagon Comptroller who ?lost" 2.3 trillion dollars, seven times the annual military budget, as announced by Rumsfeld on September 10th, 2001.) But some evidence points to the possibility of a ?plane swap? scenario in which the commercial flights either never took off, or took off and were swapped with military planes; this is the scenario envisioned in the 1962 Operation Northwoods plan for a false flag attack on America, a plan drafted by Gen. Lemnitzer and endorsed by every one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

After the ?hijacked airliner crashes? into the Twin Towers, the perpetrators blew up the entire World Trade Center ? not just the Towers and Building 7, but the other buildings as well. Huge explosions repeatedly rocked all of these buildings, beginning BEFORE the planes hit, as hundreds of witnesses have testified and as videos and photos show. Though 2500 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have risked their reputations and livelihoods to explain the scientific evidence proving that the three skyscrapers were demolished with explosives, anyone with a fifth grade science education and two functioning eyeballs can see that the Towers did not ?fall,? they exploded. Their explosive ?collapses? featured at least ten exclusive characteristics of controlled demolition, including sudden onset, near perfect symmetry, near free-fall acceleration, molten and even evaporated steel in the rubble, pyroclastic dust clouds, high-speed horizontal ejections, and so on. Never in all of history has even one of those characteristics occurred except in controlled demolitions.

World Trade Center Building 7?s sudden demise was an even more obvious controlled demolition than the explosive ?collapses? of the Twin Towers. A countdown to demolition was even broadcast over police radio. The over-insured alleged-mafiosi WTC landlord Larry Silverstein, who had just bought the Trade Center two months earlier and doubled the terror insurance, confessed on national television to participating in the decision to ?pull? (demolish) Building 7.

Silverstein and his Israeli associates controlled World Trade Center security, while the Israeli company ICTS controlled the airports where the allegedly hijacked flights departed. Dr. Alan Sabrosky, the former Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, points out that the Israeli Mossad is the only conceivable candidate for hands-on orchestrator of the coup. But it must be emphasized that the top of the US chain of command, including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and at least some of the Joint Chiefs, were fully complicit. University of California professor Peter Dale Scott has shown evidence that Cheney and Rumsfeld were part of the planning for 9/11 since their terms in the Ford Administration in the mid-1970s. They presumably felt that a New Pearl Harbor would unleash US military power and double the military budget overnight, which in fact happened. They probably contracted out the details to the Mossad and then just got out of their way.

It should be emphasized that if there is one think we know with certainty about 9/11, it was that there were no hijackings by human beings (as opposed to remote hijackings, which indeed may have occurred). Not one pilot on any of the four allegedly hijacked planes squawked the hijack code, which would have taken only a few seconds, and would ALWAYS happen in any conceivable hijacking. Additionally, not a single shred of reliable evidence places any of the alleged hijackers, or indeed anyone with Arab or Muslim names, on the planes. There are no official passenger lists. (The unofficial ones released to the media, which are not mutually consistent, feature no Arab names.) There are no ticket stubs or testimony from the airline workers who would have ticketed and boarded any such hijackers. And there is not a single authentic video any of the alleged hijackers at any of the alleged airports from which the alleged attack planes departed.

Given that the perpetrators needed the 100% certainty of successful ?plane crashes? at the Trade Towers to provide a cover story for their explosive demolitions, they obviously would not have relied on fallible human hijackers ? especially those who, like Hani Hanjour, were incapable of flying a Cessna training aircraft. (And Hanjour, according to the 9/11 Commission was the ?best pilot? among the hijackers!)

The so-called ?muscle hijackers? were actually more like five foot tall 100 pound weaklings. I?m pretty sure I could have taken out any four of them myself, box cutters or no box cutters. The claim that these 19 low-level CIA-affiliated drug couriers who couldn?t even fly Cessnas could pull off the first successful hijacking since the 1970s, much less four of them, and then guide planes into targets at ridiculous, impossible speeds is one of the most ludicrous myths ever entertained by human beings.

The official story is full of elements that are not just absurd, but downright laughable:

*Fanatical fundamentalist Muslims who spend most of their time in strip clubs, gambling dens, secure US military facilities, and CIA drug import airstrips disguised as flight schools.

*Ultra-hedonistic, ludicrously un-Islamic wannabe suicide hijackers who come to the US a year in advance of their mission and sign up for flying lessons inside the US of all places, then completely flunk out of their flying lessons ? yet somehow perform impossible acrobatic stunt feats with 757s.

*An alcoholic cocaine-addled ?mastermind," Atta, who marches into a Small Business Administration office during the run-up to the attack and aggressively demands a huge sum of cash to buy a crop-duster to drop poison on Washington DC, while ranting about his love for Osama Bin Laden.

*Magic passports that miraculously appear at ?plane crash sites? that leave no identifiable plane wreckage or bodies.

*Magic suitcases that miraculously appear out of nowhere full of incompetently-manufactured ?incriminating evidence.?

The intelligence agents who manufactured the cover story for 9/11 are either the most incompetent covert operators who ever walked the earth, or they are pretending to be so to have a good laugh at what their controlled corporate media can make us believe. This latter ?they have a sick sense of humor? hypothesis is explored in SK Bain?s The Most Dangerous Book in the World, which readers of this book will surely enjoy.

What of the whole so called "War on Terror??

As my book Questioning the War on Terror explains, the whole concept is an Orwellian hoax. Even counting the 3,000 victims of the 9/11 false flag, Americans are far more likely to be hit by lightning or drown in their bathtubs than to die in terrorist attacks.

The ?War on Terror? is really a war of terror. Its architects have terrorized us, convincing us to fear a virtually non-existent threat.

But there is one form of terrorism that is a real threat. It?s called war.

To understand why war is terrorism, consider the definition of terrorism: ?Attacks on civilians to spread fear for political purposes.? This is what wars have always done. During the past two centuries, war has become even more terrorist than in previous ages. Since Sherman marched through Georgia burning, killing and raping civilians, each major war has claimed an increasing percentage of civilian victims. In World War I the ?civilian casualty ratio? was 40%. In World War II it was 65%. In many of today?s wars it is over 90%. And in World War III it could very well rise to 100%.

Today, over 90% of the victims of ?surgical drone strikes? are civilians, many of them women and children. Blowing up entire wedding parties is a favorite pastime of the drone operators.

They also terrorize us with pervasive surveillance. Who among us hasn?t ever said or done or written something they would prefer not to see publicized? With their post-9/11 ?total information awareness? surveillance state they have colonized our imaginations with the fear that ?they? might be spying on us, so we had best not fight back against ?them? too hard.

Rich Western populations are controlled by this kind of colonizing of the imagination. Poorer, rebellious populations have their imaginations colonized differently. Instead of having to fear the consequences of surveillance and potential embarrassment, blackmail or prosecution due to that all-pervasive eye-in-the-sky, the people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere have an even nastier eye-in-the-sky watching them: killer drones that can drop out of nowhere and ?bug-splat? their entire families in an instant.

Personally, I am all in favor of having a real all-out war on terrorism. But we need to go after the real terrorists.

In On Western Terrorism, Vltchek and Chomsky document 55 to 60 million people killed by US military and CIA interventions since World War II. The people responsible for that ?American Holocaust,? as William Blum calls it, are the real terrorists. They are the ones we should be at war with.

Virtually all terrorism is committed by governments and the corporations who own them. Presidents, generals, CIA directors, and CEOs are responsible for almost all of the terrorism that exists today. They are the ones who need to be either ?bug-splatted,? or dragged into a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Ironically, it is the groups that have declared war on the real terrorists who are labeled ?terrorists? by the official propaganda apparatus. FARC has declared war on the murderous Columbian terrorist state (and behind it the US); so the real terrorists in Bogota and Washington put the FARC on their list of ?terrorist groups.? Likewise with Hamas and Hezbullah and Islamic Jihad, which are pursuing a struggle against not just Israeli state terror, but actual genocide.

Then there are the fake and half-fake (infiltrated) groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. ISIS is completely synthetic; it is a cartoon series like Tom and Jerry, complete with fake beheadings so badly staged and filmed they would have been an embarrassment at a 1970s Alice Cooper concert. ISIS was created by the West to install ?a salafist principality in Iraq and Syria? as classified US documents put it. It?s a branch of NATO?s Operation Gladio B, nothing more.

Al-Qaeda is a ?Roger Rabbit? group ? it has elements of reality as well as superimposed Hollywood elements of cartoonish fiction. There was a real Osama Bin Laden, but he has been eclipsed by the cartoon villain created by CIA-Mossad Hollywood scriptwriters. And there have been some sincere fighters associated with al-Qaeda, but the infiltrators essentially ran the group and used it to discredit Islamic resistance to empire.

The bottom line is that deception is rampant. Bottom line: We are living in an Orwellian world in which the terrorists call the anti-terrorists ?terrorists."


Do you think False Flag Actions like this are becoming more prevalent? For example what do you think happened at the Boston Marathon?

The Boston Marathon was an obvious false flag attack that was exposed by the alternative media even before the official story was in place and the patsies named. The proof is available to anyone with eyes. The exploded backpacks (photos courtesy of the FBI) were not on the backs of the Tsarnaev brothers. Those backpacks were carried, and the bombs set off, by two Craft International mercenaries. Look at the photos yourself: http://noliesradio.org/archives/113386 (Discussion of Boston bombing starts at the 3 minute mark.)

And Sandy Hook? What did you feel about that?

The preponderance of the evidence I?ve seen suggests that it, too, was probably a false flag hoax. The multiple lines of argument making that case are developed in the book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, which has been banned by Amazon.

Though I?m not 100% certain what really happened at Sandy Hook, I am outraged that Florida Atlantic University professor James Tracy was fired for asking good questions about this highly suspicious event. Professor Tracy was tenured, which should have protected his right to pursue controversial lines of inquiry. That is the whole point of the tenure system! Yet rather than refute his arguments ? which would have been a simple ?slam dunk? if the official story is correct ? his detractors chose to use deceptions, distortions, and outright lies to get him fired from his job.

The same thing happened to me at the University of Wisconsin (except that I was untenured, which made me an easier target). Politicians who didn?t like my research on 9/11 attacked me not because of anything I did on the job, but because they didn?t like the views I expressed on a radio show. Likewise, Professor Tracy was fired not because of anything he said in the classroom or wrote in academic journals, but due to views he expressed on his blog.

If State Rep. Steve Nass, and behind him Lynn Cheney and Karl Rove, didn?t like my views of 9/11, they should have found someone to refute them. Yet when the Debate Club at the University of Wisconsin tried to arrange a debate, not a single professor was willing to defend the Official Conspiracy Theory against me. Wisconsin newspapers editorialized, begging the University to find at least one professor who could debate me and show why my arguments are wrong. But none stepped forward. A few years later, my backers offered $1,000 to any teacher (professor, lecturer or TA) who would debate me on 9/11. No response. The offer was raised to $2,000. Still no response. The offer still stands today.

Likewise, Florida Atlantic University (and whoever was pressuring them) should have been able to find someone to argue convincingly against James Tracy?s views. Instead, they summarily fired him. Obviously Professor Tracy?s views must be difficult to refute.

know there have been some issues around you teaching classes on Islamic history and culture because of your views. How has speaking what you feel to be the truth affected your life and your career?

I am no longer employable in the American academy. The political witch-hunt led by the Wisconsin Republican Party succeeded in that respect. The University of Wisconsin Engineering School lost more than half a million dollars in canceled donations within 24 hours after I appeared on the Hannity Show on Fox News in July, 2006. I?m sure there were other financial hits as well. Any American university that hired me would expose itself to political attacks and likely take a financial beating.

Then Dean of Humanities Howard Ross has testified that I was turned down for a tenure-track Islam and Humanities job at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater purely due to my research on 9/11. He said I was the best candidate of the three finalists, then the only candidate after the other two went elsewhere; but the hiring committee was told that I could not be hired due to the 9/11 issue, so the University returned a huge grant to the federal government and did not fill the position.

The same thing happened with another Islam and Humanities job at the University of Illinois for which I applied. The University refused to fill the position and returned federal grant money, claiming there were no qualified candidates. In fact, I was highly qualified; how many Ph.D. Arabic and Islamic Studies scholars are there who have taught college humanities and hold four advanced degrees in various world literatures?

So my career as a university instructor is over. But my work in education continues. I am making a much more important contribution to public education as an independent author, editor, journalist, pundit and talk radio host than I ever could have as a professor.

More importantly, I am benefiting spiritually and psychologically by following the ?path of blame? (for speaking the truth) which is the path trodden by all the prophets. I am certainly not saying I?m a prophet. But, as Woody Allen says about God, we need role models. OBVIOUSLY we are all supposed to emulate the prophets. A Christian who doesn?t make the utmost effort to act like Jesus isn?t much of a Christian.

Telling a very important truth, and being reviled for it by the ?ungrateful truth-concealers? (kuffar, sometimes mistranslated as ?infidels?) is the greatest thing anybody could possibly be doing. So with amazement and gratitude I give thanks to God for this miraculous opportunity to make the most of my time on earth.

In Praise of Radicalization

On 2016-03-08 13:37:58, kbarrett wrote:
[ comments (0) ] [ link ]

by Kevin Barrett, TruthJihad.com

Salah Lamrani, a French Literature teacher, has been suspended from his job. His crime? Blogging.

According to the French authorities, Lamrani?s blog suggests that he has been ?radicalized.?

In his blog, Lamrani apparently expressed the radical idea that Russia, Hezbollah and Iran are fighting the so-called Islamic State more seriously than NATO is.

If that?s radical, then other truisms like ?the Pope is Catholic? and ?the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? are equally radical.

What can this Orwellian term ?radicalization" possibly mean?

According to Wikipedia:

Radicalization (or radicalisation) is a process by which an individual or group comes to adopt increasingly extreme political, social, or religious ideals and aspirations that (1) reject or undermine the status quo or (2) reject and/or undermine contemporary ideas and expressions of freedom of choice.

Salah Lamrani?s beliefs about the war in Syria are certainly extreme ? if by extreme we mean extremely obvious, extremely well-supported by evidence, and extremely true. His extremely true beliefs do (1) undermine the NATO status quo, which is based on preposterous, extremely obvious lies. And they also (2) undermine contemporary ideas and expressions of freedom of choice. How? By speaking the truth and thereby losing his job, Lamrani has undermined France?s self-image as a nation that respects freedom of choice?in this case, the choice to speak truth rather than lie.

In short, according to the contemporary West?s Orwellian terminology, Lamrani has been well and truly radicalized.

The term radicalization comes from the word radical meaning going to the root of the problem. Thoreau famously summed it up in his adage, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.? The one striking at the root is radical. The useless branch-hackers are not.

I wish everybody on earth could be radicalized.

Radicalized people would stop hacking at branches, and go straight to the root of problems?and solve them.

The root of the war-on-terror problem, for example, is 9/11 and its precursor and successor false flag operations. We can end the 9/11 wars, and in large measure solve the problem of terrorism, by exposing the truth about 9/11 and other false flag operations, thereby triggering a global wave of public revulsion against state terrorism, which is virtually all the terrorism that exists.

That?s right: Terrorism means violence against civilians. Therefore war IS terrorism. Wars, meaning government terrorism, have killed more than 100 million people during the past century. Non-government terrorists have killed a minuscule fraction of the number of people struck by lighting.

The only terrorism problem that matters is government terrorism.

And when people wake up and realize that there is virtually no terrorism by non-state actors, and that such purported examples as 9/11, 7/7, the Boston bombing, the 2015 Paris attacks, and so on are all government-sponsored false flag operations, they will rise up and destroy those forces responsible. Bye-bye, terrorism problem.

But beware: Anyone who chooses to go to the root of the problem and tell the truth about terrorism will be espousing a so-called extreme position that undermines the status quo. Such a person will be considered radicalized. He or she may even be deemed a nonviolent extremist by the likes of David Cameron. See: British PM David Cameron: ?Non-Violent Extremists? Including ?9/11 Truthers? and ?Conspiracy Theorists? are Just as Dangerous as ISIL Terrorists
http://www.globalresearch.ca/british-pm-david-cameron-non-violent-extremists-including-911-truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists-are-just-as-dangerous-as-isil-terrorists/5405059

Another problem that could easily be solved through mass radicalization is the so-called Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The root of that problem is obvious: The creation, through violent invasion, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, of a so-called Jewish state on Palestinian territory. End the Jewish state, make Palestine a state for all its people including the Palestinian ethnic cleansing and genocide victims, and the problem disappears.

An even bigger problem that only radicals will ever solve is the private, usury-based currency system. The root of that problem is simple: Private parties, namely the international banksters, are creating the entire money supply out of nothing by lending it into existence at interest. Transparent currency issued by sovereign nations, alongside fully-backed privately-owned hard currency (gold, silver, etc.) is the obvious solution.

And now let?s REALLY get radical. Let?s go to the root of ALL of the above problems: The human ego. (I?m using the word ego in a larger-than-freudian sense, to mean the selfishly desiring aspect of human nature.)

The good news is that there are time-honored, efficacious solutions to this problem. The bad news is that they are religious (religion has a bad name these days) and require a lot of effort.

Islam solves the problem through surrender to the One?which requires the annihilation of the ego, al-nafs al-amara bi-su? (the ego that commands evil, or the evil-commanding self).

Buddhism solves the problem through assiduous practice of non-attachment to the desires and commands of the ego.

Christianity solves the problem through Christ consciousness?ego-annihilation through love.

Each religion offers a slightly different version of the same solution.

I wish there were more radical Muslims, radical Christians, and radical Buddhists willing to embrace their traditions? radical solutions to the ultimate human problem.

Souls of the world, radicalize yourselves! You have nothing to lose but the chains of your evil-desiring egos.











Interview with Algerian journalist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Letter to the Islamic Post www.islamicpostonline.com

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

Dear Islamic Post

As-salaamu alaikum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely

Dr. Kevin Barrett

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

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






Interview with Iranian News Agency - 1/31/16

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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


Interview with Iranian Kayhan newspaper

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

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

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



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

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



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

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



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

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



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

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

Q&A on Sunni-Shia thing

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


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

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

Dialogue with a listener on science, morality, and religion

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

A listener wrote:

Hi again Kevin,

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

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

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

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

1. Where you referred to the "sexual abominations" running rampant through modern civilization, I wondered if you have read the book "Biological Exuberance" by Bruce Bagemihl?
(http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452311827&sr=8-1&keywords=Biological+Exuberance)
I highly recommend it! It is jampacked full of fascinating long-neglected evidence about the sexual habits of many different animal species. It's a scholarly piece of work which gives a refreshingly new take on the role of sexuality. At least I didn't hear you saying sex was only for procreation (that would be the biggest lie on the subject!!), but I did hear you saying how you believe it is good that in Islam sex is restricted only to marriage. My argument is not against Islam, because I'm more than happy for muslims or anyone else to restrict sex to marriage if they choose to do so, BUT my argument is against your apparent implication that this is the clearly morally superior path for everyone to take, i.e., that we should all engage in no sex outside marriage. I strongly disagree. As Bagemihl clearly shows, sex throughout the animal kingdom is not a means of restricted monogamous procreation. His main point is that the majority of sexual behaviours throughout nature are not about procreation at all (I assume that you would agree with this part?), and secondly that there is an enormous variation in sexual expressions (as well as their contexts), with the only logical conclusion being that the primary function of sex is not procreation at all, nor family values, but most fundamentally an expression of biological exuberance. (Note: I have also read, in some other excellent sexology books - a subject I have been researching a lot in recent years - another complementary theory, based on the study of pygmy chimps, the animal species by far the most similar to us sexually [e.g. no other species except humans and pygmy chimps have women in heat all through the cycle, and available and interested in sex even when pregnant], which is that sexual behavious in both pygmy chimps and humans clearly performs the primary function of social bonding, helping to put each other at ease, especially in situations of potential tension, e.g. one of the many times that pygmy chimps engage in orgies is when a tribe has just found a new food source which could otherwise generate fighting). To illustrate this, Bagemihl gives thousands of vivid examples of all kinds of what you might (?) call "sexual abominations" that natural historians have - since Victorian times - wilfully ignored in their observations and documentations of nature. Even if you were to disagree with the "way of nature", in its panoply of sexual expression strongly evidenced in this book, then at the very least you would have to concede that the way of religion and family values that you say you prefer is unnatural (i.e., an exception to the entire rest of nature). I hasten to add that unnatural does not mean wrong, of course! There is no reason we must perforce be like the rest of nature, and I'm sure you'd be quick to remind me of examples, e.g. many animals engage in killing which is natural and yet we find it abhorrent in civilized society. As another everyday example, we wear clothes, unlike the rest of nature, and this makes clothing technically unnatural for a species on Earth, but it does not make clothing wrong. Likewise, any notion of sex as either being primarily about procreation in terms of function, and/or as being rigidly tied to nuclear family values, is just as unnatural as clothing, and therefore the only logical conclusion is that for those who choose this as a lifestyle, they cannot claim it is the natural way, but they are welcome to adopt it as a lifestyle choice, just in the same way as I adopt clothing as a lifestyle choice... Therefore, when you say "sexual abominations", this is an expression of a value system which you choose to share, but there is no a priori reason why - in comparison with the rest of nature - including all the thousands of very different animal species - this value system should be regarded as self-evidence or correct or something that everyone needs to share. If, for example, I defend sex outside marriage as more natural, and more agreeable to my value system, this is not to put down your value system, but to assert the co-existence of more than one value system in relation to sex in humans, wherein none of those value systems are inherently "abominable"! Your implication that this value system has something to do with the self-evident degeneration and downfall of civilization is absolutely absurd, because, by the same logic, and as evidenced by Bagemihl's book, you would perforce need to therefore argue that all of the THOUSANDS of other animal species that share this planet with us are ALL in the midst of a "downfall" of their societies likewise!! Clearly most of them are not, given that these are expressions of the natural "exuberance" which is integral to who they are - and to who we are. If there is a single characteristic which is defining of ourselves, as human beings, it must surely be our immense variety of expression, or biological exuberance - just as much as all the other animals and even more so. It is just as absurd to label this as a "downfall" as it would be to say that a nudist colony is a bunch of degenerates exemplifying the downfall of modern society, when in fact it's clear that nudists are the ones closer to nature, not us the clothed ones!

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

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

My response:

Hi S,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You write:

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

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

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

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

Kevin


back Next