If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Monday, September 28, 2009

Is Fetzer "Insane" ? Am I a "Sap"? Ex-Dynamic Duo has Dynamic Difference of Opinion

A friend is someone who can tell you when you're full of it.

I have been friends with Jim Fetzer of Scholars for 9/11 Truth since he moved to Madison in early summer 2006, just in time for us to compete to see who could do the best Fox News interview. (My best effort is here, his are here and here.)

We have had our differences of opinion over the years, and now it looks like we have another one. Jim thinks this Greek newspaper story is credible, so it's reasonable to say that "4,000 Jews were forewarned" before 9/11. I strongly disagree.

Below is a record of our email exchange on the subject, in chronological order, with Jim's emails in italics, and mine in boldface. You be the judge.

It began when Jim saw my email to Michael Morrissey saying:

First, the idea that the "Jewish community" was forewarned about 9/11 is completely insane. I agree with Mike Ruppert, who in Crossing the Rubicon suggested that this rumor was planted by Mossad to discredit the fact that actual warnings went out to specific Israelis (Odigo, Zim Shipping, etc.) which is why only one or possibly two Israelis, instead of dozens or hundreds, died in the Twin Towers...

Jim's response:

Kevin appears to be developing his propensity to shoot off his mouth when
he has no idea what he is talking about. I find that extremely offensive.
How did you manipulate him into doing this? That kind of conduct is quite
consistent with my take on your character and duplicitous behavior here in
relation to any indication of Israeli complicity in 9/11. Are you going
to get Kevin to assert that any such indications are also "insane"? You
are a truly despicable person, Michael. You are playing Kevin for a sap.


Saying "4000 Jews were warned" IS insane. I agree with Elias that the Greek newspaper report is not evidence of anything, and is in fact almost certainly a sloppy rendition of the Jerusalem Post story, or possibly a Mossad plant to discredit actual evidence of Israeli foreknowledge. While it is not quite impossible that the Haaretz and Yadiot Ahrandt articles could exist and say what the Greek report claims, it is so improbable that we would need to see archived copies of those newspapers to credit the claim. In the unlikely event this turned out to be true, it would still be insane to translate the Greek word as "Jews" rather than "Israelis," given the sensitivities and common usage in American language and culture.

For what it's worth, I think the evidence does show that many Israelis were apparently forewarned, that the one or two Israeli deaths is obviously considerably lower than would have occurred without such warnings, that the Odigo and Zim stories support this interpretation, and that the Mossad agents photographing themselves flicking cigarette lighters in front of the burning Towers were obviously celebrating an event they, or their agency, had helped perpetrate.


PS Calling Michael "despicable" and me a "sap," and insulting the admirable Elias, does not make your weak argument any stronger.


Thanks for getting back on this. I did not say you were a "sap". I
said he is playing you for one. I don't know how many exchanges you
have had with Michael, but I am convinced that he is NOT on the up-
and-up. Moreover, the article was provided to me by Evi Martyn, an
internationally celebrated concert pianist, who bought the paper in
Greece the weekend of 22-23 November 2001. She has also explained
that, in Greece, the terms "Israeli" and "Jew" are virtually inter-
changeable. She translated the article and we have had several dis-
cussion about it. From the point of view of logic or the theory of
knowledge, it establishes a prima facie case for its contents, which
are entitled to be accepted at truth unless they are rebutted by the
discovery of stronger evidence. I can assure you that Elias and I
are doing just fine. But I can't quite understand this eagerness to
dismiss evidence of Israeli complicity that was apparently published
in TWO Israeli newspapers. Just for my edification, precisely how
do you KNOW that this report, which Evi obtained from the paper when
she was in Athens that weekend, is FALSE? I can't want to hear the
response. You are really making a blunder if you take Morrissey at
face value. He would not even allow a mathematic study of why the
Twin Towers could not have collapsed because it had appeared on an
anti-Semitic web site! As I explained to him then, that is a nice
example of the genetic fallacy, which dismisses an argument based
upon its source. In this case, it did not even originate there,
but only appeared there. If the argument is correct, it remains
correct--and that is the case, even if Adolf Hitler himself had
written it! I was simply stunned by his overly zealous anti-anti-
Semitism, which he is using as a club to bash research that might
implicate Israel in the events of 9/11. You might want to take a
look via google at my article, "Is 9/11 research 'anti-Semitic'?"



As an illustrious professor of scientific reasoning, critical thinking, and so on, if you cool down for a few moments you may notice that it's you, not me, who is shooting off his mouth without knowing what he is talking about.

(quoting Fetzer)
"But I can't quite understand this eagerness to
dismiss evidence of Israeli complicity that was apparently published
in TWO Israeli newspapers. Just for my edification, precisely how
do you KNOW that this report, which Evi obtained from the paper when
she was in Athens that weekend, is FALSE?"

I don't. But I have no reason to believe it's true either. I know nothing about the Greek paper or its reputation for reliability or lack thereof. As a secondhand report, this needs to be sourced to the Israeli papers themselves, as Elias said, especially since it does seem improbable that Israeli papers would print such a story. Would you accept this kind of leaping to an incendiary, improbable conclusion from a secondary source whose bona fides are unknown, without seeking the primary source, from a graduate student?



You will see that I have addressed other aspects of this in an even
more recent post. The short answer is, No, I am not a credulous moron,
but thanks for asking! This article was in a newspaper purchased in
Athens on the weekend of 22-23 September 2001! I hope you did not
miss that point. It was given to me by the very person who bought it,
who is a native Green and celebrated international pianist, a source
that is a tad more credible than you seem to be willing to acknowledge.
Do you think the Mossad had this story published in two Israeli papers
on the 17th and the 18th in order to discredit students of 9/11 years
later? Is that what you are suggesting? Yet you admit that there is
ample other evidence that Israelis were warned. I don't get it. Why
are you so disbelieving about this article when its source, Evi Martyn,
is impeccable? And do you understand the concept of prima facie proof
or not? If you want to dispute what this authentic article from Alpha
One is reporting, then it is incumbent upon you to disprove it! I've
done my part by presenting a prima facie proof. Unless its contents
are rebutted by stronger evidence, we are entitled to accept it as
true--albeit in a tentative and fallible fashion, since subsequent
evidence might show that it is false. OK? YOU AND MICHAE BEAR THE
BURDEN AT THIS POINT IN TIME. Your intuition, alas, is not evidence.

Thanks for a very nice, thoughtful response. Let's continue this.


Quoting "Kevin Barrett" :


Intelligence agencies plant news stories all the time. Journalists report wrong information all the time. I know that only too well, because most of what has been written about me in the media is wrong!

Consider the database of mainstream stories at the 9/11 section of History Commons. All of these many thousands of referenced stories include information potentially casting doubt in one way or another on the official version of 9/11. In a great many cases, that is because one mainstream media story contradicts another. No sensible 9/11 researcher would accept the idea that there is a strong prima facie case for accepting the truth of each and every story! Indeed, many of the most commonly cited stories by 9/11 truthers (and even more stories cited by supporters of the OCT) are very likely false, such as the Times of India report that the head of the ISI wired $100,000 to Atta -- very likely an Indian intelligence plant to discredit their Pakistani enemies. You have heard of Operation Mockingbird, I trust.

I have taught folklore courses on urban legends, and the biggest source of urban legends is absurdly false news stories. There are thousands of them, as well as millions that are less obviously, but no less, false.

The likely truth of any given media report depends on many things, including the history and reputation of the newspaper and journalist, whether there are independent corroborating reports from other newspapers, whether the information is plausible, whether it conflicts with other reports, and so on. If one newspaper cites another, a scholar is supposed to track down the original source.

Do you really accept the truth of everything that has ever been published in any newspaper, including the National Enquirer and its Greek versions, unless someone can conclusively prove it was false!? In that case, I suppose you must believe that Elvis regularly visits the earth from his UFO base on the dark side of the moon unless I can disprove it, which I unfortunately cannot.


PS None of this has any relation to your disagreements with anybody else on any other issue.


I am not used to this degree of irrationality from someone whom I know
and trust. Morrissey is another matter entirely. We had an extensive
discussion of this issue on parallel threads, one on his alethetia, one
on 911scholars. I rebutted every argument he posted! So he took down
the thread from alethetia, banned me from the site, and resigned from
911scholars, which meant that his blog, which included this thread, was
wiped out! What we have now is but a fragment of the previous thread.
Is that the kind of conduct you would expect from an honest researcher?
Why don't you ask Michael precisely what he thought he was doing? He
might have taken it off his own site, but removing it from mine--even
though he was able to do it because it was on his own blog--was about
as clear a corrupt act as I have ever witnessed in 9/11 research apart,
of course, from the production of THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT itself!

Please note the meaning of "Prima facie". In this case, it comes from
Wikipedia, but there is nothing unusual about this definition. What he
is attempting to do--and you are falling for it, alas!--is to shift the
burden of proof, so that I not only have to pose a prima facie case but
do the additional research to bolster it! That is not required under the
law and logic certainly does not dictate it. Michael has gone so far as
to claim that he has no idea what the article says because he can't read
Greek! This is like his dismissal of Charles Boldwyn's mathematical proof
that the Twin Towers cannot have collapsed because HE PERSONALLY was not
able to follow it! Do you see a pattern developing here? Something is]
very wrong with Morrissey. It took me a while to figure it out. And he
is a LINGUIST! He even said he had an expert handy to translated it, but
then somehow this "expert" disappeared, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE TOO TEDIOUS!
Well, the article isn't more than 500 words. How tedious can that be?

I have established a prima facie proof. The obligation falls upon those
who would deny it to advance proof to the contrary. Your subjective sen-
sibilities--that it would be "absurd"!--alas, does not count as evidence.
Which is why I am so puzzled by the intensity of your response. Where
does reason leave off and your subjective sensibilities click in? HOW
course, you can't. You even admit to the existence of evidence that is
consistent with the content of this article, namely: that there is lots
of proof that Israelis were warned. Well, stupid things happen all the
time--like framing Oswald with a weapon that cannot have fired the shots
that killed JFK--but I guess I only have to consult your subjective sens-
ibilities to discover that that is "absurd", too, even thought it is fact.
So what has become of your commitment to logic and evidence? Consider:

Prima facie (pronounced /ˈpraɪmə ˈfeɪʃiː/, from Latin prīmā faciē) is a Latin expression meaning on its first appearance, or by first instance; at first sight. The literal translation would be "from first face", prima first, facie face, both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which — unless rebutted — would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.
Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings may then commence to test it, and create a ruling. This may be called facile princeps, first principles.

Morrissey wants to evade the issue by shifting the burden of proof. Don't
fall for it. If you now join him, you will likewise be abandoning reason.
He has a motive, which--believe it or not--appears to be to suppress or to
distort every piece of evidence that might implicate Israel in 9/11. You,
to the best of my knowledge, do not share that motive. I therefore have
higher expectations of your capacity to respond to evidence in a rational
fashion. Do us all the favor of not abandoning that standard here and now.



Intelligence agencies plant news stories all the time. Journalists report wrong information all the time. I know that only too well, because most of what has been written about me in the media is wrong!

Consider the database of mainstream stories at the 9/11 section of History Commons. All of these many thousands of referenced stories include information potentially casting doubt in one way or another on the official version of 9/11. In a great many cases, that is because one mainstream media story contradicts another. No sensible 9/11 researcher would accept the idea that there is a strong prima facie case for accepting the truth of each and every story! Indeed, many of the most commonly cited stories by 9/11 truthers (and even more stories cited by supporters of the OCT) are very likely false, such as the Times of India report that the head of the ISI wired $100,000 to Atta -- very likely an Indian intelligence plant to discredit their Pakistani enemies. You have heard of Operation Mockingbird, I trust.

I have taught folklore courses on urban legends, and the biggest source of urban legends is absurdly false news stories. There are thousands of them, as well as millions that are less obviously, but no less, false.

The likely truth of any given media report depends on many things, including the history and reputation of the newspaper and journalist, whether there are independent corroborating reports from other newspapers, whether the information is plausible, whether it conflicts with other reports, and so on. If one newspaper cites another, a scholar is supposed to track down the original source.

Do you really accept the truth of everything that has ever been published in any newspaper, including the National Enquirer and its Greek versions, unless someone can conclusively prove it was false!? In that case, I suppose you must believe that Elvis regularly visits the earth from his UFO base on the dark side of the moon unless I can disprove it, which I unfortunately cannot.


PS None of this has any relation to your disagreements with anybody else on any other issue.

And on it goes... For the record, I like and remain friends with Jim Fetzer, and also have a high opinion of Michael Morrissey.

Once again, this whole argument revolves around one Greek news story, archived at http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-4000-israelis-and-ariel .

Friday, September 25, 2009

Walid Shoebat's Evil Twin: We Jews Want to EAT You!

"Call Me Wiggy": The Amazing Story of Walid Shoebat's Evil Twin, As Told By Himself

Hello. My name is Wigfried Shoebatstein. But please call me Wiggy.

My great-grandfather was Jacob Shoebatstein, a close associate of the genocidal Zionist Theodore Herzl. Jacob and Theodore spent many hours plotting the murder and expulsion of the Palestinian people.

My father was Rueben Schoebatstein, a friend of Jewish terrorist Ariel Sharon. Rueben bayonetted dozens of Christian and Muslim babies in the 1948 massacre in Deir Yassin.

I grew up in the part of Palestine that is occupied by Jewish terrorists. From my earliest childhood, I was taught to hate non-Jews, especially Christians and Muslims. I remember lapping up the blood of Christian babies at my fourth birthday party.

Growing up as a secret Jewish terrorist, I murdered at least two or three hundred Christians and Muslims with my bare hands, by carving a hole in their bellies with my thumbnail and ripping their gizzards out and sucking them down my throat like strands of spaghetti. I also remember kidnapping Christian kids and circumcising them with an electric can opener.

As a teenager I was selected for membership in the elite Jewish terrorist group the Elders of Zion. (Actually, to be perfectly honest, it was the youth affiliate, the Youngers of Zion.) I had to memorize their founding document, the Protocols, in Hebrew, English, and Esperanto. I learned that when God promised the Jewish people that their descendants alone would populate the earth, He meant that we would have to kill off all the non-Jews. We would start by fomenting a war between Christians and Muslims, causing the two groups to mostly destroy each other. When the time came, we would finish off the goyim cattle with biological weapons designed to kill anyone without Jewish genes. After that we would grind up their rotting carcasses to make matzo ball soup.

Then one day I suddenly awoke and saw the light and embraced Jesus as my only lord and savior. I vomited up all the Christian entrails I had ingested during my years as a Jewish terrorist. I came to America to tell the American people the truth about the Jewish terrorist plot to suck up Christian gizzards, foment a war between Christianity and Islam, guzzle the blood of Christian babies (the main ingredient in MD20-20, which is what radical Jews use in their drunken kosher ceremonies), and ultimately take over the world and celebrate with a cannibal matzo ball feast.

When I got to America, I discovered that my long-lost identical twin brother "Walid Shoebat" (real name Waldo Shoebatstein--we were separated at birth) was already here -- and he was rich and famous! Waldo was all over Fox, MSNBC, and the other mainstream media outlets run by Zionists and/or military contractors, which means all of them. He was claiming to be a former PLO terrorist spilling the beans on the evil Muslims' plot to kill Jews and Christians and take over the world. Yeah, right!

I noticed that Waldo was making massive moolah selling books and doing speaking engagements at churches. Even though he had been exposed by Chris Hedges and others as a complete phony, the churches were still paying him a king's ransom to make up stories about how evil the Muslims are. So I figured, hey, since I'm his identical twin, why shouldn't the churches pay ME big money to make up stories about how evil the Jews are? After all, fair is fair! If it's okay to bad-mouth Muslims, it's okay to bad-mouth Jews. Right?

So I am writing to tell you that I am currently available for comedy engagements in your church. Please start passing the collection plate now. But hurry -- once the Jews take over the world, you won't be able to book me any more, since what's left of you will be floating mournfully in a bowl of kosher soup.

Your alleged brother in Christ,

Wigfried Shoebatstein

Author, God's War on Jewish Terror: The Divine Plan to Stop Them from Drinking Your Child's Blood
Front Man, The Wigfried Shoebatstein Foundation

PS Actually it's Walid who is the evil twin! I'm the good one! He's the one who started this racket! I'm just following in his footsteps! And besides, nobody believes me, but a lot of morons really DO believe him!

Thursday, September 24, 2009

My interview on What Really Happened Radio today@ 5pm Central

I'll be interviewed by Michael Rivero of WhatReallyHappened today at 5 pm Central.

Mike "I Am Blogger Hear Me Roar" Rivero is a key figure in the biggest communications revolution since Gutenberg. His truth-telling news-and-commentary website, WhatReallyhappened.com, is one of the big three (along with Rense and Alex Jones).

My interview with Mike Rivero, who has done so much to put the lying mainstream media out of business, comes at an interesting moment. As the mainstream media continues its slide toward complete moral as well as fiscal bankruptcy, Editor and Publisher reported yesterday that the newspaper owners are whining to Congress and looking for a handout from the taxpayers.

Defenders of the mainstream media claim that only professional mainstream media journalists actually produce news stories, while bloggers like Rivero (and yours truly) parasitically spin those stories, which were produced by the hard work of others.

The problem with that argument is...well, for starters, more than 95% of mainstream media stories are complete garbage: rewritten press releases, fluff pieces, infotainment, lies, and so on. The output of the mainstream media is completely worthless to normal people, who have limited time at their disposal, unless someone like Mike Rivero sifts through it and finds the important stuff.

But even the 5% of mainstream stories that are important are published without any historical context by which readers could make sense of them. And what little historical context is supplied, whether directly in the story itself, or indirectly by the way the mainstream media frames all its stories, is wildly distorted at best, a pack of lies at worst.

Mike Rivero, with his trenchant and often humorous commentaries, and his archiving of important contextual material overlooked by the mainstream, offers his readers and listeners the kind of historical context they need to makes sense of the news.

Keep on roaring, Mike!

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Condi Threatens to Attack America Again

Condoleeza Rice, who warned San Franciso mayor Willie Brown not to fly on 9/11, has followed Dick Cheney in threatening to launch another massive terrorist attack on America.
"If you want another terrorist attack in the US, abandon Afghanistan," she said in an interview with Fortune magazine on Tuesday.

Condi's comment recalled Dick Cheney's repeated threats to launch another 9/11 attack on America, most famously his claim on the eve of the 2004 election that if Americans elected John Kerry, they would be hit with another 9/11:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.

Though Cheney is already a walking parody of himself, the Onion attempted to satirize Cheney's threat simply by calling it what it was:

Cheney Vows To Attack U.S. If Kerry Elected

GREENSBORO, NC—In an announcement that has alarmed voters across the nation, Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that he will personally attack the U.S. if Sen. John Kerry wins the next election.

Cheney Vows To Attack U.S. If Kerry Elected

Cheney issues a warning to Greensboro, NC voters.

"If the wrong man is elected in November, the nation will come under a devastating armed attack of an unimaginable magnitude, one planned and executed by none other than myself," Cheney said.

Just to make sure there would be no misunderstanding about who really did 9/11, Cheney did an interview just before leaving office in which he bragged that "9/11 itself" was the greatest achievement of his vice presidency.

Dick Cheney Calls 9/11 the "Highest Moment" of the Last Eight Years

I hope DHS is keeping a close eye on Dick and Condi....

Sunday, September 20, 2009

"Blood Libel" My Irish Muslim Arse: Israel DOES Murder Children as De Facto Policy

An open letter to Jonathan Kay, concerning Jonathan Kay: Meet Diana Ralph, the bizarre anti-Israeli conspiracy theorist who charmed the United Church of Canada


My faith in your fairness and balance has taken a nosedive! I hope your book on 9/11 truth won't be a "meet the bizarre conspiracy theorists" rant like this article.

By mixing up a few legitimate criticisms with a lot of nonsense, all in a tone of over-the-top hysteria, you do your credibility no favors.

You write:

As the National Post reported on its front page on Friday, the UCC provided financial backing for a 2008 conference that led to the creation of "Independent Jewish Voices" (IJV), an extremist group whose leaders support a total economic boycott of Israel, defend the UN's original anti-Semitic Durban conference, support the destruction of the Jewish character of Israel through the influx of millions of Palestinians, spread conspiracy theories about the "Israeli lobby," promote the blood libel that Israel deliberately targeted "children playing on roofs" during the Gaza conflict, and cheered on the illegal occupation of the Israeli consulate in Toronto earlier this year.

It is hardly "extremist" to use a peaceful boycott to end Israeli apartheid, implement the U.N.'s demand for right of return, and create a state with an equal protection clause -- a close parallel to Mandela's South African solution. (Or do you see Mandela as an "extremist"? and the South African settler colonialist whites giving the indigenous majority equal rights as "genocidal self-destruction"?) And what was anti-Semitic about the Durban conference? Wasn't it anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic? And how can you deplore the "destruction of the Jewish character of Israel" through peaceful means, while implicitly supporting the destruction of the Arab character of what is now Israel through the horrific murders of thousands of civilians including children, in 1948, leading to the forced expulsion of over 700,000? And isn't taking over a consulate without violence a fairly innocuous kind of protest, especially when compared to the obscene levels of violence necessary to create and sustain the Zionist settler-colony?

Along with all the nonsense, you offer one possibly legitimate critique about a claim that Israel deliberately targeted children on rooftops during the Gaza invasion. If that claim has been made, and there is no evidence for it, it should be withdrawn. But calling it a "blood libel" is a bit much, given that we know that Israeli snipers DO target Palestinian children as a matter of de facto policy. British Medical Journal documented more than 600 sniper-murders of children by Israeli soldiers here. That article begins:

"Does the death of an Arab weigh the same as that of a US or Israeli citizen? The Israeli army, with utter impunity, has killed more unarmed Palestinian civilians since September 2000 than the number of people who died on September 11, 2001. In conducting 238 extrajudicial executions the army has also killed 186 bystanders (including 26 women and 39 children). Two thirds of the 621 children (two thirds under 15 years) killed at checkpoints, in the street, on the way to school, in their homes, died from small arms fire, directed in over half of cases to the head, neck and chest—the sniper's wound. Clearly, soldiers are routinely authorised to shoot to kill children in situations of minimal or no threat." (my emphasis)

The best "thick" description of these sniper-murders is by Chris Hedges, one of America's most respected journalists, who wrote in Harper’s magazine (October 2001) that he had been in several war zones, but he had never seen soldiers luring children within range of their guns, then gut-shooting them for sport, until he saw Israeli soldiers doing it in the Occupied Territories.

The BMJ article and Hedges' piece, along with countless witness accounts of these killings, clearly establish that the Israeli state routinely authorizes child murders, as vaunted by the soldiers' T-shirts featuring a pregnant Palestinian woman with a target on her belly, over the legend: "One shot two kills." Hence the allegation you deplore, even if false, is not much of a blood libel, because what it implies about Israeli policy is true.

When you offer so many distortions, it detracts from whatever good points you may have. For example, calling the Durban conference anti-Semitic, when it plainly was not, hurts your credibility in claiming that Eric Huffschmidt is anti-Semitic, which he does appear to be, at least in some of his statements.

Speaking of incoherent hysteria, I suspect that your article's tone, with its "doth protest too much" attempt to imply that the anti-Zionists are failing, is a classic Freudian reaction formation driven by the conscious or unconscious realization that they are succeeding.

I urge you to quit hanging out with Richard Perle and the forces of darkness; come over to the light, and get on the right side of history, which also happens to be the side of truth and justice. Philip Weiss is blazing a trail for you and other journalists to follow.

By the way, if you'd like to return to my radio show to discuss this issue, let me know. I'm sure you could do a much better job making the pro-Zionist case than Steve Alten did.

I really would like to hear good answers to the obvious questions, such as "How can you claim that child-murder is NOT de facto Israeli policy given the BMJ article etc." and "why does the Holocaust justify the theft of Palestine rather than Germany" and "why should Jews but not the other 3000-plus ethnic groups have the right to an ethnic state" and "why is indigenous majority rule through an equal protection clause right for South Africa but wrong for Palestine" and "why shouldn't the U.N. resolutions demanding right of return and a return to the 1967 borders be immediately implemented" and so on.


Saturday, September 19, 2009

Today's Radio Show, More Fan Mail

Great radio show today coming up with Jerry Mazza and Russ Baker.

Meanwhile I'm too tired from the (probably) last day of fasting for Ramadan to write anything myself, so here is some more noteworthy feedback on the Steve Alten dogfight...

Dear Kevin and Steve,

Now that you have both accused the other, and now me too, of black-and-white thinking, I can say that you are both right, and so am I: this IS a black-and-white issue. The only shades of gray are in the minds of everyone who refuses to see that Big Brother did it, and that "Big Brother" is exactly the appropriate term for what you know I mean. This makes it black, I know, which is why we don't want to see it, and keep looking for the gray.

I admire you both. You have taken two different paths toward the same goal, and you have both been successful, and made a difference. I know I am talking to my superiors. I can't figure out which way to go myself. Fiction or non-fiction -- that seems like a black-and-white issue, too, but maybe there is something else. Success or failure? Maybe there is an alternative there as well. I don't know. I'll keep you posted.

I keep citing Pepper's Act of State as the best model of reality we have. There is no black-and-white there. It's all black. Still, here we are. We need to get our eyes adjusted to the darkness before we can start to see some light.

I respect your views on Zionism, Kevin, and it is obviously an important issue. But it is not the central issue. The central issue is the reality that Pepper describes.

(name deleted)

* * *

Hi Kevin!
I'm a longtime admirer of yours, and have been THRILLED to end up on your e-mail list. I imagine that happened as a result of becoming a grass roots activist for 9 /11 Truth.org here in Nashville. I've been following your battle for a couple of years, and just tonight read about your experience with 9/11Blogger.com. I just want you to know that I am in COMPLETE AGREEMENT with EVERYTHING you say. You are obviously MUCH BETTER EDUCATED on the facts than 99.8% of Americans. Our buddy Michael Chertoff was on Washington Journal this morning. I had to leave after a few minutes, but the first call was about the missing trillions from the pentagon, and he just played dumb. It is an INSULT to EVERY American that this OBVIOUS TRAITOR can be on OUR tv shows, spewing his murderous lies. I saw a few more calls on 9/11Blogger (before I read what they did to you!?!? First the Truthseeker.co.uk disappears, then I find out 9/11B ran your candidacy out of town on a rail- where's a good internet guy to GO anymore!?!) and he equated 9/11 Truth with holocaust denial (which, in a back-handed way is the only HONEST thing he's EVER done!!!) and the Obama birth certificate thing.
You know what I'm wondering, Kevin? When are some of our law enforcement in this country going to grow some balls, and go out and arrest these bastards? The evidence is READY! Somehow we need to encourage our police forces around the country to start arresting these TRAITORS. I'm not a lawyer (musician by trade), but I could put ALL OF THEM in front of a firing squad in about two hours, if the jury weren't a bunch of American morons. People like Michael Chertoff should be SCARED TO DEATH to walk the streets in America. It says something very sad about the character of the American PEOPLE that men like him ARE ALLOWED to strut so bravely through our country after what they've done. Although, I will say, I bet he NEVER imagined eight years ago that someday he would be on the Washington Journal with people pummeling him with questions about the missing trillions, 9/11 in GENERAL, NANO-THERMITE, etc. I would venture to say that Mr. Chertoff's comfort zone is shrinking by the second.
Thank you and may God bless you for all that you have done, AND LOST, in pursuit of the truth. I don't expect a reply, but I would be HONORED to hear from you personally. You, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, and the whole host of others that have openly and HONESTLY helped to lead this great movement are the Thomas Jeffersons', George Washingtons', Ben Franklins' and Paul Reveres' of OUR time, and to count myself just AMONG you is one of the great parts of my life, and I spread the word and evidence you all have given the world everywhere I go.
My hat is off to you , Mr. Barrett. You are TRULY a man among men!
Your friend-- (name deleted)

"The multiplying villainies of nature do swarm upon him. Disdaining fortune with his * brandished steel, he smote the bloody executioners"! -V

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Jews, the Media, and 9/11 Part 2: The Left Alternative Media

When you break a taboo -- for example, by saying something that is never said in polite company -- the explosiveness of the reaction is a guide to just how taboo (and therefore important) the subject is.

Judging by the reaction I've gotten, the question of whether there is a disproportionate Jewish influence in the media, and if so whether this might have some bearing on the way Middle East issues in general and 9/11 in particular are covered, must be very important.

In my talk "A Muslim View of 9/11 Truth," presented at the We Demand Transparency conference in New York, I argued that most Muslims think that the 9/11 inside job was part of an ongoing war on Islam, that occupied Palestine is the major battlefront of this war, and that 9/11 was probably at least partly motivated by Zionism and carried out by Zionists/Israelis. Additionally, most Muslims (at least the ones I have met) believe that pro-Zionist Jews control the U.S. media and inflict their pro-Zionist views on an unsuspecting populace by way of outrageously biased coverage of anything related to the Middle East or Islam. (Of course, what looks "outrageously biased" to Muslims, who see no valid reasons why there should be a Jewish state in Palestine, and lots of compelling ones why there shouldn't, may not look that way to American supporters of Israel.)

Steve Alten, the American Jewish author of the 9/11 truth thriller The Shell Game, did not like my presentation. He especially disliked the part about Jews in the media, which included a chart showing that in 2003, four of the five biggest media conglomerates had Jewish CEOs, while the fifth (Fox) was run by the possibly Jewish and definitely zio-extremist Rupert Murdoch. When I interviewed him Tuesday on Fair and Balanced, Steve accused me of brandishing a random list of five media people who happened to be Jewish. My response, "It's not a random list, Steve, these are the CEOs of the five biggest media conglomerates" didn't pacify him.

Steve also wasn't impressed by Philip Weiss's informal listing of the people he had worked with and for in the media which concluded that probably more than half of key U.S. media figures are Jewish. (Weiss's follow-up dialogue with Jeff Blankfort and Bruce Wolman here ).

Since he doesn't like lists, Steve won't like this angry Muslim's list of Jews in powerful places, including media positions . And since he doesn't accept personal experience (like Weiss's) as evidence, he probably won't like Joel Stein's wonderful piece about how DUH, of course Jews run Hollywood!

On my radio show, Steve argued that all of this doesn't matter: Americans support Israel because Israel is a democracy, it has nothing to do with Jewish power. My response: You've got to be kidding! First, Israel is not a democracy -- it ethnic-cleansed the majority of people who should be on its voter rolls, and its formal democracy masks a covert and extremely vicious military dictatorship. But leaving that aside, I think it is obvious that if there was no Jewish power in the US, Americans would care no more about Israel than about, say, Trinidad and Tobago. (Does anyone really care whether Trinidad and Tobago is a democracy or not?) To the extent they did care about it, they would be disgusted by its apartheid, its ethnic cleansing, its racism, its criminality, its ongoing atrocities...in short, they would recognize that Israel is a lot like apartheid South Africa was, only vastly worse. (Yes, I know there are Christian Zionists out there, and they're much nuttier than the Jewish ones, but I don't think Christian Zionism would be a major force if it weren't for the Jewish power that conditions American perceptions of the Israel-Palestine dispute.)

Getting back to Weiss's question, do Jews dominate the media, and if so, does this affect Middle East related coverage... Steve Alten vociferously disputes my hypothesis that Jewish media power is a factor in the 9/11 cover-up. In fact he goes further, portraying my hypothesis as an anti-Semitic suggestion that evil Jews are conspiring to cover up 9/11. That's a gross distortion. My hypothesis is that since most American Jews have an Israel-friendly worldview, and since 9/11 truth might turn out to be very bad for Israel, they have another reason to not want to "go there" on top of the other reasons they share with non-Jewish Americans. (For a moving essay by an American Jewish Studies professor torn between her desire for 9/11 truth and her fears concerning possible Israeli involvement, read Sandra Lubarsky's essay in the volume we co-edited, 9/11 and American Empire v.2: Christians, Jews and Muslims Speak Out).

The Left Alternative Media Top Ten List

Even though Steve Alten doesn't like informal research methodologies, I thought I'd make up a quick list of the top ten names in the left-alternative media, and see if there might be any correlation between Jewish identity and position on 9/11 truth. (Naturally this list reflects who and what I know -- others might come up with slightly different top tens).

Amy Goodman: hosts the immensely inflential (in left-alternative circles) Democracy Now.

Noam Chomsky: the biggest left-alternative name in world affairs

Al Franken: the best-known left-alternative radio host besides Goodman; recently elected Senator from Minnesota

Danny Schecter: "the news dissector," founder of Media Channel, leading left-alternative media critic

Norman Solomon: well-known author and media critic: founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy

Matt Rothschild: Editor of The Progressive magazine

Peter Phillips: founder of Project Censored

Robert McChesney: leading academic media critic and activist

Lewis Lapham: former editor of Harpers, major figure in American letters

Alexander Cockburn: syndicated columnist, editor of Counterpunch

Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but to the best of my knowledge the first six names on this list are ethnic Jews, while the last four names are not. (It is interesting that, if my top ten is a fair selection, more than half of the leading names in left-alternative media are Jewish, even though Jews are only 2% of the US population. And given the importance of the three "stars" Goodman, Chomsky, and Franken, one could argue that the actual influence of Jews in the left alternative media is even greater than numbers alone would suggest.)

Now let's give each of these folks a grade for 9/11 truth. An A+ means that person has covered the controversy about who was really behind 9/11 fairly, while giving it the prominence it deserves relative to other issues; while an F- would represent the strongest possible active opposition to 9/11 truth. I will arrange the class list from highest to lowest grade; Jews in boldface, goys in regular face.

Peter Phillips: B (Important stories about 9/11 have made Project Censored's annual compendiums several times, but have not had nearly the prominence they deserve given the importance of this issue relative to other issues.)

Lewis Lapham: C+ (While editing Harpers, Lapham let it be known that he was reading the works of David Ray Griffin; under his editorship, Harpers published a critique of the 9/11 Commission entitled "Public Service as Whitewash.)

Danny Schecter C- (His analyses of the post-9/11 media environment ignore the elephant in the living room, the overwhelming evidence for an inside job, but he did at least once offer some moderately supportive constructive criticism to the 9/11 truth movement .)

Robert McChesney D+ (Despite rumors that he made some early, tentative baby steps toward 9/11 truth, McChesney backed off, refusing an invitation to the Chicago conference of June 2006 and avoiding the subject thereafter.)

Alexander Cockburn D+ (While he deserves kudos for encouraging Justin Raimondo's early work on the Israeli connection to 9/11, and publishing a few good pro-truth essays and reviews, Cockburn's boozy anti-truth-movement ranting more than outweighs the positives.)

Al Franken D- (Franken just won't go there. Worse, he has implied that truthers are anti-Semites by sardonically saying that on 9/11 he got "the Jew call" warning him to stay away from the WTC.)

Amy Goodman: F (Though she personally witnessed the obvious controlled demolition of World Trade Center Building 7, Goodman quickly accepted more than $100,000 dollars from the CIA-affiliated Ford Foundation to "report about 9/11" [meaning cover it up]. After a firestorm of audience demands led her to invite David Ray Griffin and Ellen Mariani on her show in 2004, she cancelled Mariani at the last minute and brought in professional anti-truth propagandist Chip Berlet, whose operation runs on half a million dollars per year from the Ford Foundation, to spew deceptive attacks on Griffin. Ignoring the issue for three years, in September 2007 Goodman set up the young Loose Change filmmakers against professional anti-truth propagandists from Popular Mechanics. To date, she has continued to censor out all 9/11 truth news, refusing to give even one iota of coverage to the New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative, the most important citizen's movement ever to take root in New York City. How can she refuse to cover NYCcan.org even after she told me on camera that she supports a new investigation?)

Matt Rothschild: F (Rothschild first ignored the 9/11 debates so assiduously he didn't even know what Building 7 was in early 2006, then vaunted his ignorance in "Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Already." For the past three years he has censored the subject and attacked those who attempt to bring it to his attention.)

Norman Soloman: F (Soloman actually resigned from the Project Censored board to protest the inclusion of a few 9/11 truth stories [like "Steven Jones finds thermate"] among the dozens of vastly less important ones.

Noam Chomsky: F (Chomsky's 9/11 "blowback" book, published just months after the attacks, was probably the biggest single factor persuading left-alternative Americans not to question the official story. Since then he has alternately ignored the 9/11 truth movement, and insulted it with mind-bogglingly specious, incoherent platitudes. As Barrie Zwicker demonstrates in Towers of Deception with his meticulous deconstruction of Chomsky's anti-truth rhetoric, Chomsky's work on the most important issues [the "deep politics" issues analyzed by Peter Dale Scott] is so hideous, so apparently stupid, so counterproductive to reform, that the hypothesis that Chomsky is a deep cover agent of the state cannot be ignored.

This little thought experiment adds more evidence that in 9/11 truth, unlike most other subjects, goys get better grades than Jews. It seems especially noteworthy that the three most influential people on the chart, Chomsky, Goodman, and Franken, all happen to be Jewish, and together earn three of the four lowest grades in the class.

If my top ten list is a fair sample, and my characterization of the listees' ethnicities and 9/11 work is accurate, it would seem to support the argument that Jews are wildly over-represented in the alternative media, and that this fact may have unfortunate consequences for the alternative media's reporting on 9/11. If so, this would lend additional support to the widespread view among Muslims that Jewish media power in the USA, and its consequences for the way the news is reported, is a fact, not an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory."

I don't think I cherry-picked the list or distorted the listees' ethnicities or records on 9/11. So is there something wrong with my argument, other than the obvious fact that it's not conclusive in the way that physical science (like the discovery of nanothermite in the WTC dust) can sometimes be? Can lists, such as Kevin Ryan's list of NIST coverup criminals with nanothermite expertise, sometimes convey important information, and has my list done so, or not? Please email me your critiques: kbarrett(at)merr.com.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Steve Alten Interview Touches a Raw Nerve

Angry listeners take to the streets after my interview with Steve Alten.

Actually the listener feedback was over 80% positive. Below is a representative selection of noteworthy emails, several of which are from well-known 9/11 truth movement names.

* * *


I can only imagine the mail you're getting.

Alten was rude and aggressive and put words in your mouth and then claimed to possess the right to define the meaning of the words.

Steve also seems to be inspired by Ronald Reagan's use of anecdotes.

Sorry you've had to endure this brother.

Love ya.

(name deleted)

* * *

Dear Kevin,

You don’t know me … I think (I hope I’m not on the short list with anyone yet). My name is (name deleted) . The comment below “Think the main battlefront of that war is the Zionist settler-colonial occupation of Palestine, which has been a Muslim-ruled holy land for more than 1300 years, except for a few brief, bloody Crusader interludes, including the current one;” is a little miss leading to say the least. You have to know the prior history of that area surely. For 2000 years it was ruled by Jews then by Rome for hundreds more before Islam and Mohammed was even born. The area was conquered and re-conquered by 4 or 5 opposing forces for centuries. To simply say it was a Muslim holy land for 1300 years it a half truth.

Half a truth is often a great lie.
Benjamin Franklin

The growth and takeover by Islam was anything but peaceful during those 1300 (less) years. Both sides commit unspeakable atrocities even to this day but the part that I cannot get over is teaching children to kill, even strapping them with explosives sending them to public areas (where no fighting/ violence it presently occurring) that kill both them and innocents (along with some guilty). When will the ‘peace loving’ Muslims speak out and demand this stop? I see people in the US, Christians/ Jews/ secularists/ atheists for and against fighting an unjust war (unconstitutional too) but all denounce such atrocities.

Regards, (name deleted)

PS- Lots to read and listen to below… still in process… maybe some already explains this but haven’t got there yet.

* * *

Excellent...The Weiss meace on Mondoweiss.net is thought-provoking and a refreshingly candid look at the issue. Thanks, Kevin.

* * *


In 1968, I was a member of a college seminar to the Middle East with stops in Lebanon and Israel. We found the Lebanese to be a friendly people as well as the Palestinians in Israel. Israel, or at least the government, seems to forget that Palestine has a historical base preceding the Jews. If I'm wrong, so what? The American Indian preceded the white man in America, and we still treat them like dirt.

Israel seems quite content hiding behind the Holocaust, apparently assuming the Jewish people are unique in this respect. I believe Obama has justified a blind eye to 9/11 by focusing on the future and not the past. It's all politics with little respect for the common man.

To get back to our seminar, by the time we had spent a week in Jerusalem and traveled about the country, the Palestinians had won our hearts and minds. Israel's so called settlers are about as justified as American settlers were invading Indian territory. Each year the Hillel Foundation at Purdue sponsors a Holocaust Remembrance Conference to remind the world that they are God's chosen people. I wonder if God was a Zionist?


(name deleted)

* * *

I agree with Steve on this...Boiling 9/11 down to a Muslim-Isreali thing is just wrong. There are more powerful forces and motivations to my mind.

(shortened, name deleted)

* * *


I listened to your Steve Alten Radio Interview today. I have some suggestions for you on future use of terminology to avoid getting the knee jerk reaction from Jews who will call you anti-Semitic or holocaust denier.

Trigger Words to Avoid

The Jews

Better Targeted Words

Neocons or Hardliners in the Israeli Government
Hawks or Zealots in the Israeli Military
Hard-line or Radical elements in the Mossad

This way good Jews who simply support Israel's right to exist, will not take offense with a knee jerk reaction and attack you. Try to repeat several times in your interviews and conversations that you are not taking about the majority of Jews or the Israeli people. They are good people. You are talking about the Hard-line/Radical/Neocons/Hawks/Zealots who abuse the power they have.

This is also true of our American Government. The majority of people in the Military, Intelligence Agencies, Congress and Executive Branch are good patriotic Americans. It's the Hard-line/Radical/Neocons in positions of power who are doing all the bad things.

If you avoid using the Trigger words, I think you will get more people over to your side. My suggestions anyway.

(name deleted)

* * *

His (Alten's) arguments are specious and predictible. He was rude, and unfair, to you, while you were very gracious to him. He cannot be considered to be sincere but misguided; he is not sincere, he is using the arguments given by the Zionist hierarchy to counteract opponents, especially "attacking your opponents credibility" and "not listening to his arguments" but "staying on the attack at all times, no matter how untenable" your own statements are. I could go on, but you already know.

(name deleted)


Pretty cool, when you think about it. If the Mafia could get the police to limit their investigations of organized crime out of sensitivity to the tender feelings of Italians, that would probably take a lot of pressure off the "family". Matter of fact, I think they tried that once, but they didn't have a holocaust card to play any time things got dicey.
Boogie on, Kevin.

(name deleted)


1) There is nothing there. There is no issue just smoke and mirrors. Wasting your time is your business.
2) However, you are attracting Holocaust deniers (I heard from two after the show) and other neo-Nazi types and this is being noticed by people outside the Truth Movement (in fact it is a growing problem generally and not something we can contribute to and be respectable in any fashion). When we try to approach people we now have to deal with the fact that the Truth Movement is more and more being associated with neo-Nazi views. When your efforts start to get in the way of reaching more and more people you have to ask yourself what point is being served.
3) If the mainstream of Islam is ideologically in bed with neo-Nazis then you have much bigger problems, but regardless there is still no good that can come from staining the Truth Movement with such views.

(shortened, name deleted)

* * *

I can't handle the dumbest people on the planet, the Americans. Trying to reason with Jews is beyond reason. Andrew Winkler, editor of ziopedia, who calls himself a "recovering Jew" [recovering from paranoic/supremacist conditioning], said that what must be realised when reasoning with a Jew is that you're very likely trying to reason with someone who's insane.

I dialoged, and tried to reason, with mainstream "non-zionist" Jews daily in a couple of online forums for 5 years. I finally gave up. Their sense of justice sickened [disgusted me] me too much. I've had my fill.

Good luck.

(name deleted)

* * *

Good job Steve! Met you in Lawrence, KS. Gotta follow the truth wherever it leads, and some of these trails do unfortunately lead to the ashkenazi/khazar & other tribe remnants who have elevated their disparate group or criminal gang to a fairly powerful nation-state status with the incorporation of Israel, which provides the perfect cover for this gang's activities for decades. Everyone knows their exceeding influence, yet unfortunately it can be discussed in public only so carefully because of their always shrill and widespread reactionary response. You'd of thought they were a racial or religious group which ruled the earth with 3 billion in their midst, not the far smaller actual numbers who claim to be in their ornery clique.

They are correct in pointing out that mentioning any zionist or Israel connections to 911, (without the real FBI type investigations doing the work first) has usually and will likely result in the usual mudslinging from the usual quarters against the whole 911 truth movement. That is maybe the unintended consequence, which they bring about by their own reactions, in order to play the victim card and alledge their absolute innocence, but in my opinion you gotta do whatever you think is best for you and for the truth as a whole.

The fact that Mr. Silverst**&% not only purchased the leases, so essentially the real estate only months prior, then put his most unusual double indemnity terrorist coverage, on a set of buildings that had previously had alledgedly two requests for demolition turned down by New York officials, due to the harm asbestos dust could cause in a demolition, and that the buildings were obsolete and naturaly subject to future demolition or major renovation/conversion, which remained uneconomic compared to demolition. His ownership and his subcontractors probably had enough time in control to provide cover for any nefarious activity within the buildings prior to 9/11, if not by simply providing key codes and looking the other way. . Any sane and apolitical FBI would have been all over this guy and all of his subcontractors and activities, in the same way that any mobster in NY would be investigated at the least, after a large arson at a building they owned and recently re-insured.

(name deleted)

* * *

great stuff. you are channeling spiritual power from Allah. an inspiration. you are in my prayers.

(name deleted)

* * *

Hi Kevin,

It's simple, YOU are RIGHT and (Steve) is WRONG

If OUR views hurt the 9/11 Truth Movement ? so be it TRUTH IS AUTHORITY

WE THE PEOPLE revealing TRUTH is a responsibity of ours to do, for CHANGE to occur

There is good and bad in all groups of people in the World BUT INTERNATIONAL ZIONISM
IS REAL BAD SHIT. No need to write a book here (or RANT) but for starters what about the attack on THE U.S.S LIBERTY, is Dave a U.S.S Liberty DENIER


(name deleted)

* * *

A ‘Jewish’ state forced into a multi-ethnic region is violent state-racism as flagrant as it ever gets – and anyone who wishes Israel to remain an expressly ‘Jewish’ state is a violent racist as plain as any goose-stepping Nazi or cross-burning KKKlansman.

If Steve Alten approves and supports the perpetuation of official ‘Jewish’ supremacy in Zionist Israel, he is a violent racist – but this might not be pertinent to the debate. What is pertinent is that 100% of editorial policies of local ‘Jewish’ newspapers in the US and Canada also support that violent racism, as do 100% of mainstream Jewish ‘community organizations’ – yet they bitterly deny that they are racists, thus confounding well-meaning citizens and the very definition of ‘violent racism.’ And their votes and financial contributions – through AIPAC, for example – assure the defeat of any US politician who does not support their violent racist agenda, which has included the decimation of all Middle East populations (Afghanis, Lebanese, and Iraqis most recently) that do not approve the expansion of Zionist racism in Palestine and throughout the region.

Any US Jew who does not audibly oppose the violence committed by Zionists, when that violence is supported by his Zionist friends and family, is primary among the guilty and should be arrested and legally penalized.

Thanks for supporting equality and democracy Kevin.

* * *

Hi Kevin,

Please be careful to not mix up Zionism with Judaism. That is the trap that Zionists wants you to fall into so that they can label you as an anti-semite. Remember, real Jews are NOT Zionists. Zionists may be phony Christian (like Bush, Clinton, McCain, Biden, …) or the phony Jew (like almost all of the superrich Zionist Jews who dominate finance and media.

Rothchild is the true father of Zionism and the other superrich Zionist Jews have followed the march of their ultra-superrich leader Rothchild.

On your links you give in your emails, be sure to give the link of Rabbi Yisroel Weiss, www.nkusa.org the anti-Zionists Orthodox Jewish leader. By doing so, they can not call you anti-semite, because you have a real Jew as your friend. You really ought to have Rabbi Weiss on your program anyway.

If I may be of any further help, please do not hesitate to ask.

Yours in freedom and justice,

(name deleted)

* * *

If you look at his book Shell Game, right at the beginning, it has his 'sources'. His source for his research on Arabs was that horrid Zionist DVD, Obsession.

When I saw that, I knew he was a Zionist plant, and you are confirming it. I never could support him or that novel, it was biased and very weak at the end with all that green blah blah blah. Very poorly developed ending

I support you in revealing the Israel problem and watch out for him, he was paid to do that book.

Stay safe, they are dangerous. I have had a personal experience that I can tell you about sometime.

I will most definitely catch the show or repeat.
Thanks and keep on tellin the truth!

(name deleted)

* * *


"that pro-Israel Jews dominate the American mainstream media, with predictable consequences for coverage of the Israeli-Palestine conflict..."

There is an excellent DVD that documents this: "Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land". If you haven't seen it, you should. If you have, mention it on your show (or mention it even if you haven't seen it).

(name deleted)

* * *


Steve is making an unconstitutional demand, trying to infringe upon your First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly, and the Free Exercise of Religion.

Before you related that you got 'flak' and that is a military term, as in 'flak jackets' that is fire from the ground at airplanes bombing a country in WWII, Dresden comes to mind.

That gave you pause, and that my dear friend; violated your Civil Rights, for you were repressed, not by a change of convictions or conscience, but out of retribution.

Ask Steve if he has been to Israel, what he said to Israelis about Palestinians, and ask him about the USS Liberty. You will not be asking him to shut-up, but speak up himself as to what he things and feels deep down. Tell him to cool it on supporting Israel, for that makes him complicit in Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes under the Nuremberg Principles! Do not lay on the ropes and get worked-over, skull-butt him with the truth, be as vociferous as he dares to be, and do not let his alleged 9/11 activism compromise your ire and message. Think of him a Rehm Emanual or Howard Berman!

(name deleted)

Monday, September 14, 2009

Krauthammer's right, 9/11 truth IS dangerous

Neocon pundit Charles Krauthammer has delivered a tremendous compliment to the 9/11 truth movement: "It's beyond radicalism, beyond partisanship. It takes us into the realm of political psychosis, a malignant paranoia that, unlike the Marxist posturing, is not amusing. It's dangerous." (Full Krauthammer op-ed here).

The truth about 9/11 is indeed dangerous, not least of all to the neoconservative propagandists like Krauthammer who could one day find themselves in the docket for covering it up. The work of Mr. Krauthammer, and the other third-rate Goebbels epigones employed by the Zionists who "have a stranglehold" on the national media and the government (James Traficant) is treason pure and simple. It is also complicity in mass murder, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

This is the case because we now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the three World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed in controlled demolitions using nanothermite composites--the most explosive substances yet invented--that were obviously not manufactured in a cave in Afghanistan. The tons of nanothermite used to destroy the World Trade Center could only have come from high tech military laboratories in the U.S. or Israel. Since Neils Harrit's nanothermite paper was published, no journalist, including Mr. Krauthammer, has any excuse for putting out pro-official-story propaganda. Based on the Nuremburg precedent, Krauthammer could one day be charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity for publishing his anti-truth hit piece.

Just as nanothermite is the most explosive substance yet invented, 9/11 truth is the most explosive political substance yet invented. "Dangerous" is an understatement. It could trigger war crimes and treason trials (which could include journalist defendants like Krauthammer) that will make Nuremburg look like a Judge Judy misdemeanor case. And it has more than enough explosive power to bring down the Zio-American empire at free fall speed.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Letter from Ground Zero

Hello friends,

I'm in New York for the We Demand Transparency Conference, where I'll be speaking tomorrow at noon -- hope to see you there. Special low price at the door for students and the economically challenged: only $20!

The amazing news is that NYCcan.org has prevailed and is on track to have the NYC Ballot Initiative on the ballot this November. This puts the bad guys in a difficult position: How can they stop it without publicizing it? Stay tuned for updates in this astonishing battle between the forces of good and evil...

My interview yesterday with the TV news channel Russia Today is getting good reviews. Check it out:

Kevin Barrett 9/11 - 'Van Jones should've done what I did!'

It's also archived on my RadioDuJour page.

Don't miss my interview tomorrow (5 pm Central, American Freedom Radio) with two of the smartest, best-informed, careful, sober, meticulous AND nicest guys in the 9/11 truth movement, David Ray Griffin (whose new book on WTC-7 is now shipping) and Michael Andregg. Who's Michael Andregg, you ask? Visit my radio schedule page for more...

Finally, some terrific news from my hometown of Madison, WI. Lou Stolzenberg, who has been running the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth and its spin-off Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth for the past two years, managed to draw some (gasp!) favorable mainstream media coverage! I've appended the complete story below.

Thanks for your work for truth and justice, hope to see you tomorrow.

Kevin Barrett
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters: http://www.questioningthewaronterror.com

* * *

(to find the story below on-line, go to http://www.yournews.com/copyroom/mynews.asp and enter Madison, then click on any of the Madisons with 537** zip codes)

Eight years after 9/11 horrors, "Truthers” movement gains momentum

Like many 9/11 truthers, Lou Stolzenberg, coordinator of the Madison-based Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, questions whether or not the attack on America was done on purpose to open the door for a more bellicose U.S. foreign policy and unrestrained surveillance of the American people.

By Brian D’Ambrosio

Eight years after the horrors, 9/11 remains a thorny, even divisive issue.

On one side of the issue, there are the “truthers.” In the weeks before the 9/11 attacks, they feel that warnings poured in from the world’s spy agencies, but U.S. officials ignored them. Instead, our intelligence agencies were harnessed, air interceptors grounded – and the attacks exploited to launch a preemptive war on Afghanistan. The results, they say, have been a U.S. corporate stranglehold of Central Asia’s and the Middle East’s oil and gas, a wealthier Bush dynasty, and restrictive censorship in the form of the Patriot Act.

On the other side: the camp of the traditional, widely unquestioned line of thinking. These folks believe that the White House and the intelligence community were in no way accomplices in the horrific attacks, that a full-scale investigation isn’t needed, and Osama bin Laden is indubitably the heinous culprit. After all, they say, Osama bin Laden has been intimately linked to global terror for more than three decades. When Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was captured in Pakistan, a subsequent search of his former residences led investigators to believe he was financially tied to bin Laden. Moreover, he had stayed at a bin Laden financed guest house while in Pakistan.

At first, Madison truther Lou Stolzenberg, coordinator of the Madison-based Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, thought it was far-fetched to think Bush had been somehow complicit in the events of September 11. Swindle an election? Perhaps, she thought. But in her mind, she was simply unable to ponder such a wicked possibility.

Yet it is just this possibility that Stolzenberg considers.

Like many 9/11 truthers, she questions whether or not the attack on America was done on purpose to open the door for a more bellicose U.S. foreign policy and unrestrained surveillance of the American people.

“When I first heard information questioning traditional 9/11 thought three years ago,” says Stolzenberg, “my first reaction was to think it was an extreme type of thinking or nonsense conspiracy theory. But after reading many books and scholarly sites, I began to think otherwise. It has been a gradual process for me, as I am a very cautious person.”

Since then Stolzenberg has urged citizens to scrutinize some of what she and others see as contradictions and inconsistencies in the official 9/11 record. And she hopes to not only share information challenging the formal 9/11 record with all those who are willing to listen, but she wants to convey that it is patriotic, circumspect, and dutifully American to do so.

“One of the things I try to do is refute the myth that all people who present an alternative view of 9/11 are incompetent. Many of them are intelligent, respected, and from many different disciples. They are scientists, engineers, and military people, not delusional nutcases.”

Stolzenberg has some reason to fear that her opinions may be maligned by the majority. Last week, an adviser to President Obama who once voiced suspicion that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush White House, was quickly dumped by the administration for his “offensive words . . . (which) do not reflect the views of this administration.”
The beleaguered advisor, a member of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, signed a petition in 2004 calling for an investigation into whether "people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war." That same year, Bush critics asked New York's then-attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, to make a "deeper inquiry" into evidence aiding the conspiracy theory.

Main Points of 9/11 Truthers

Truthers have recently rallied around a study released in April by independent scientists and researchers that suggests that the cause behind the destruction can be seen in the WTC dust: active highly engineered thermitic materials. Dr Niels Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, alleges that the destruction of the twin towers, and the lesser remembered Tower 7, was caused by nano-thermite, a combination of aluminum and rust powder that reacts to intense heat, producing molten iron and an explosion.

The substance, the report claims, “is useable as a rocket propellant and contains more energy than dynamite” – and more than ten tons were found near Ground Zero. Thermite can be bought by anyone, but the nano process is a “strictly military and still experimental affair.” The FBI is analyzing the paper, which lends new support to the demolition theory put forth by faultfinders.

Truthers have maintained for years that WTC buildings 1 and 2 exhibited many unusual characteristics of controlled demolition, including extreme explosiveness, symmetry, pulverization, and lateral ejection of debris. The mushroom-like canopy exhibited upward not outward arching streamers in the first few seconds – a geometry of explosion, not gravitational collapse.

Other theories allege that a missile fired from inside the U.S. rather than a plane hit the Pentagon, and that United Airlines flight 93 was shot down instead of crashing. Possibly the most intriguing, though, is that WTC 7, a 47-story, steel-framed skyscraper, housed a clandestine bunker from where 9/11 was orchestrated and that it was destroyed by a controlled explosion to cover up the evidence. (The D epartment of Defense (DOD), CIA and US Secret Service all had offices there.) Additionally, floor 23 was a New York City command center on standby for civil emergencies – but it had already been evacuated.

Opponents of the 9/11 truthers say that the initial timeline and original data support the generally accepted version of events that what happened on that dreadful day was the work of a group organized, trained, radicalized, and funded by the notoriously bloodthirsty al-Qaeda and the reactionary Taliban.

A Few Questions

Whether you believe that a handful of doggedl Arabs hijacked airlines, used them as fuel-laden missiles, in an attempt to fulfill their religious obligations for Allah, or that Dick Cheney, the evil maestro, orchestrated the attacks from a hermitically-sealed bunker, some things about 9/11 don’t jibe or still require a more cogent explanation than what’s previously been put forth.

Some questions that I personally would like to see better and more clearly answered: Who blocked investigation of known bin Laden associates? What happened to our defense measures? When was the Afghan offensive first conceived? Why did America not protect its citizens and scramble jets? San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown was booked to fly from the Bay Area to New York City on the morning of September 11. Certain high-level U.S. security authorities anticipated some sort of grave danger, and believed it to be urgent and threatening enough to warn Brown, who was about to catch a flight to New York – but not the public. The London Times reported that the famous novelist Salman Rushdie, receive a similar warning to avoid U.S. and Canadian airlines. Why weren’t the American people warned?

What is the true nature of the business connections between the Bush and bin Laden families through the Caryle Group? Why it is that the first Afghani Prime Minister was a former paid UNOCAL oil consultant?

And, the all-important, yet stomach-turning question: Who benefited from September 11?

Suspicious stock trading in the days leading up to Sept. 11 involving United Airlines and several WTC companies, made someone tremendously wealthy or even wealthier.

Vice president Dick Cheney’s statements conclude that the White House, not the FAA, was in control regarding scrambling on Sept 11, making the White House responsible for standard operating procedure failure. Why did the White House take the authority to be in charge on Sept. 11 and then not actually scramble jets until it was too late?

Inconsistencies and Contradictions

The position of the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission is contradicted by the FBI, which does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which bin Laden is wanted because, the FBI has said, it has no solid evidence of his responsibility for 9/11.

On the day of the hijackings, Mohammed Atta, the suspected ringleader, is said to have flown from Portland, Maine, to Boston, and then into the World Trade Center; the government says that it was able to determine the identities of all 19 hijackers immediately after the attacks thanks to Atta’s luggage. The luggage, which didn’t make the connection, contained a number of revealing items, including correspondences, a passport, a driver’s license, and a flight simulator. Curiously, Atta was the only passenger among the 81 aboard American Flight 11 whose luggage didn’t make the flight.

The reported trajectory of Flight 77, which crashed in to the Pentagon, was allegedly manned by Hanji Hanjour, who, according to all reports, was an awful pilot, even in a small plane. Experts say the plane was flown in a very competent manner.

Motive, means, and opportunities

Ultimately, says 9/11 truthers such as Stolzenberg, all those of palpable motives, means and opportunities should be investigated.

“Neo-cons were hoping for an event like 9/11,” says Stolzenberg. “They wanted a new Pearl Harbor, in order to fulfill their goal of getting the U.S. into the Middle East, to control the oil supply and maintain the American standard of living. The plan to go in to Iraq was set long before 9/11. Since then, we’ve seen key elements of the constitution negated, people being tortured, and the military budget doubled, which would have never been possible without 9/11.”

Stolzenberg can usually be found at the Dane County Farmers’ Market, but this weekend she will be operating the Wisconsin Coalition for 9/11 Truth booth at the Bob Fest, September 12-13, at the Sauk County Fairgrounds. She says that several encouraging developments are reshaping the movement.

“There has been a dramatic change in the makeup of the 9/11 truth movement in the last three years.” says Stolzenberg. “It is now led by independent scientists and other professionals in relevant fields. The number of architects and engineers calling for a new investigation is almost eight hundred. And, in NYC, 78,000 have signed petitions for a new investigation.

“The mainstream news providers have done a masterful job of convincing readers that anyone who asks questions about 9/11 is a conspiracy nut,” adds Stolzenberg. “That’s not true.”

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Sander Hicks: On Van Jones

Might Obama's annoyance with the Van Jones lynching have something to do with today's release of Charlie Sheen's amazing conversation with Obama about 9/11? [Note: this turned out to be an event that "hasn't happened yet..."' i.e. a hoax.] I'll be discussing this and related topics with 9/11 truth supporter and California Assembly candidate Peter Thottam today on Fair and Balanced.

Meanwhile, here is Sander Hicks' article "On Van Jones" http://wedemandtransparency.com/vanjones.html

WDT Producer Sander Hicks is a former Van Jones fan. He has met him, heard him speak and has read his book. Here are a few reflections on the news that Jones will be leaving his White House job in the wake of revelations that Jones once signed a 9/11 Truth.org petition.

We are living in a strangely anti-intellectual time. Van Jones, the Obama White House's "Green Jobs" man, was forced out this weekend. A Fox witch hunt found Jones had signed a 9/11 Truth petition back in 2004. But 9/11 is the last thing the media is willing to talk about.

Politico bites its nails and says that it's the end of an era. They blame the left pre-emptively in case the left might get mad at Obama. Au contraire, Don Hazen at Alternet praises Jones' charisma and leadership and says that it's better this way, Jones can now become a leader of the progressive left. But wait a minute Don, that's eerily like the right wing wags who said that Palin had a better shot at the White House, once she quit. No one likes a quitter.

Time (of all places) gets it half right by side-stepping the drama. Time points out that the bigger issue is the green jobs creation that Jones was in charge of. That was important.

So why then, would the old 9/11 issue be allowed to nullify the need for "Green Collar Jobs?"

At an Investor's Circle conference, I once saw Jones turn a crowd of weel-heeled Boston liberals into a roused mass of loud revolutionary spirits. I read his book "The Green Color Economy" with relish, but in the end, found it a little disappointing. The Boston speech was passionate and hearty. The book showed Jones' getting groomed for a place in the mainstream political establishment. With endorsements from Daschle and Pelosi, it was easy to forget that Jones was a real community organizer with a human rights center in Oakland. The book omits the story of his radicalization by daily life in the USA: Rodney King's assailants' acquittal, or the railroading of black radical journalist Mumia Abu Jamal, or 9/11.

Establishment media voices take it as given that 9/11 Truth is an issue so taboo it's not worth going into. Polls show that a huge amount of people reject the Bush/Cheney official story. But not one voice in the media have examined why Jones felt compelled to sign this petition in 2004.

Over the weekend, Jones backed down quickly. He claimed the 9/11 Truth petition he signed, "certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."

What an opportunity wasted.

At this moment in history, we know more about 9/11 than ever before. A peer-reviewed journal just published the research results of a team of scientists that found military-grade explosives in the dust from the World Trade Center.

We know now that the CIA, FBI and Pentagon protected several of the key 9/11 hijackers before the attacks. Here in NYC, a careful, professional petition drive has gotten blocked from getting on the NYC ballot as a November referendum on a new 9/11 investigation.

This weekend, I am producing a conference of the best minds in the science and history of the truth about America, the ugly truth about its broken "justice" system, it's sham War on Terror, it's sham economy and it's sham currency. I'm doing it because Obama himself is a sham. People who call him a "socialist" are struggling for words to describe a deep feeling of betrayal.

I will leave you with these comments from a reader on Alternet:

Did Obama give Van Jones even a second thought? Of course not ... Just like Obama doesn't give a second thought about the people of America ... It's all about the neoliberal agenda.

Obama cuddles with Billy Tauzin, head of Big Pharma, golfs with the head of UBS, who promoted tax cheating in Swiss Accounts and regularly chats with Fat Cat Bankster CEOs, who have taken us for trillions and are gonna get trillions more.

Among all his centrists and Wall Street wonks, Obama had one interesting guy working for him.

Until this weekend.

For peace, for truth, for the USA, We Demand Transparency.

-Sander Hicks

Sander Hicks, Producer
"We Demand Transparency!" Conference

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Attack of the Mockingbirds

Imagine the nastiest attack scene in Hitchcock's film The Birds. Then imagine that the killer birds are all mockingbirds...as in Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's media control division.

That's what it feels like every year in early September, as official propagandists swoop down on us "conspiracy theorists" in squawking flocks, depositing their ridiculous little turds of BS (birdsh*t) in our hair and trying to peck out all eyes that believe what they see, rather than what the authorities tell them.

The mockingbird attack began with the predictably awful National Geographic TV hit piece.

The birds then turned their sharp little beaks on Alex Jones, trying to peck him to death in the pages of Psychology Ptoday.

It continued yesterday with the gang-flocking of Van Jones, the Obama advisor who had had the audacity to sign the 2004 9/11 truth statement calling for a real investigation of the bloodiest crime in American history.

And today it hit the funny pages, as Skull-and-Bones member G.B. Trudeau, a longtime controlled-opposition operative, delivered a dollop of anti-9/11-truth propaganda completely devoid of wit. (I'm referring to his September 6th Doonesbury strip.) Trudeau comes from an elite background and apparently joined Skull and Bones in 1970, then began inflicting CIA propaganda on the American mind-controlled "left" after graduating from Yale in 1973.

And me, I've been swatting baby mockingbirds like mosquitos. The controlled opposition pseudo-truthers have been all over me, and all over Sander Hicks for inviting me to the We Demand Transparency conference in New York, 9/11 - 9/13. Just today, some nutball who goes by virginiaf.raines@gmail.com has been repeatedly spamming me and more than 270 other 9/11 truth people with Islamophobic garbage including vicious attacks on me and attempts to blame Bin Laden and other Muslims for the Mossad's controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.

Infowarriors, I hope you've stocked up on birdshot!

Friday, September 4, 2009

Reflections on Bollyn Interview: Is Jewish-Zionist Domination of the US Media a Factor in the 9/11 Truth Blackout?

And will the Zionist propaganda brigade wage all-out war on me for even raising the question?

Any more rhetorical questions?


Do Jews Dominate in American Media? And So What If We Do?

My in-box is overflowing with praise and blame concerning my "coming out" as an anti-Zionist who thinks Zionism was the biggest motive behind the 9/11 false-flag attack, and who thinks the overrepresentation of Zionist Jews in the U.S. media helps explain the cover-up.

First, some of the praise. A listener writes: "My most profound appreciation for your courageous and vital program of September 1st...You transcended yourself, brought Chris (Bollyn) back to public attention, and broke the omnipresent self-censorship of the diabolical and protracted criminal chain-conspiracy that produced 9/11 for the on-going imperial wars of aggression." And one of the best-known and universally-respected 9/11 truth leaders wrote to a worried Jewish mainstream radio host: "IMO Kevin has always been and continues to be on the level, in the sense that he is authentic and truthful beyond what most of us can accomplish, because he appears to be fearless."

Meanwhile, the Zionist infiltrators of the 9/11 truth movement were not happy.

By Zionist infiltrators, I do not mean honest 9/11 truth-seekers who happen to be pro-Zionist. I mean those whose mission is to destroy the movement by:

* suppressing evidence of the Zionist connection to 9/11 and attacking those who cite this evidence

* preserving the core of the psy-op by defending the long-disproven notion that there might have been "radical Muslim hijackers" involved -- any evidence that proves there were no hijackers, like David Ray Griffin's proof "the cell-phone calls" were fabricated through voice-morphing, the multiple indications that no 757 hit the Pentagon, or even son of holocaust survivors Elias Davidsson's overwhelmingly important proof that none of the 19 patsies ever boarded the planes, are suppressed, downplayed, or viciously attacked

* attacking the most rhetorically successful 9/11 truth films, such as the first two Loose Change efforts, 9/11 Mysteries, and the films of Dave Von Kleist for various reasons, mainly through wildly exaggerating alleged flaws in accuracy that are actually a matter of interpretation, and of little relevance in any case to the only important issue: the film's (rhetorical, not "scientific") power to convince newbies

* viciously attacking many of the most accomplished, talented researchers of the 9/11 truth movement, most recently Rob Balsamo and CIT, for not kowtowing to the attackers' rigidly dogmatic version of events -- and for offering strong evidence disproving the possibility that there were any Muslim hijackers

* viciously attacking many of the most accomplished, talented communicators of the 9/11 truth movement, myself included, supposedly for disagreeing with various aspects of their dogma

Here is a recent attack on me from the leading Zionist-infiltrator site:

"In 2006 he was just supporting holocaust denial in personal emails."
False. The Zionist stalker assigned to me after I produced David Ray Griffin's UW-Madison C-Span talk, Mark Rabinowitz, fabricated this untrue allegation.

"In 2008 he was claiming no Israelis died on 9/11 just on 911blogger."
False. I cited a mainstream report of WTC victims that showed no Israeli deaths on my radio news show (not 911blogger). Then I corrected myself when shown other mainstream sources claiming that one or two Israelies had died in the Towers. But wait -- the Jerusalem Post ran a story saying that 4000 Israelis were expected at work that day! That means that about 400 Israelis should have died in the Towers, if the Israeli community in New York had not been somehow forewarned. Even if the Post were off in its estimate, the gross discrepancy between the expected and actual number of Israeli (NOT "Jewish") casualties is a massive red flag. The attacks on me are designed to distract from this obvious proof of Israeli involvement in the attack on the WTC.

Last July he was toasting Jews on a 50,000 mainstream AM radio station that reached half the country, while holding himself out as an author and an expert on the war on terror.
I am a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist and an expert on the war on terror. I did just write an excellent book on the subject. And the only toasting of Jews I have ever done involves raising a glass of non-alcoholic beverage to such Jewish folks as Steve Alten, Daniel Ellsberg, Steve Bhaerman, Douglas Rushkoff, Eric Walberg, William Robinson, Brad Friedman, Richard Falk, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Jay Weidner, Joel Hirschhorn, Swami Beyondanonda, Lloyd DeMause, Barry Chamish, William Blum, the five Jewish contributors to 9/11 and American Empire v.2, and even the surprisingly fair Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay, all of whom are friends and/or radio guests.

In a review of his own book last week Barrett claimed that there was no connection between Islam and terrorism, and mischaracterized the FBI's position on Osama's guilt.

I correctly cited Robert Pape, the world's leading expert on suicide terrorism, as arguing that there is no connection whatsoever between Islam and terrorism. I also correctly cited the FBI's position that Osama is "not wanted" for 9/11. Obviously this Zionist Islamophobe has a hard time accepting such things.

Recent posts at Barrett's truthjihad blog have involved "Jews did 9/11" and "Jews Run the World" themes.

No such words can be found here...though I certainly do think the prime authors of 9/11 were probably of Jewish ethnicity, yet religiously harcore atheists, like their mentor, Leo Strauss. So why is it not okay to say this, yet the whole world talks about "Islamic terrorism" and alleged Islamic involvement in 9/11?

He's also engaging in vicious attacks on one of his critics that are, even if they're true (does anybody know?), shameful ad hominems that he levels instead of discussing the issues.

9/11 truth sex stalker Brian Good
is a nutball who has been cyber-stalking me for years due to some sick sexual infatuation with me. If YOU were being stalked by a sexual predator nutcase, would you "discuss the issues" with him? Especially if his endless attacks were incoherent and completely empty of any real content?

I suppose these mendacious attacks from the provocateur brigade at truthassholes.org, a site which is almost indistinguishable from screwloosechange, are proof that I must be doing something right.