Kevin Barrett from the WDT site/intro by Sander Hicks

kate of the kiosk's picture

 http://wedemandtransparency.com/barrett.html

Five Quick Questions
with controversial Muslim author

Kevin Barrett

Introduction by Sander Hicks

I remember a 9/11 truth gig I did at the Rainbow Cooperative bookstore in Madison, WI, in 2005. It was a great night, with a lively and packed little room. There was this guy there who just seemed to bubble up with enthusiasim and zeal for 9/11 truth. I got to know him later that night, as he smiled and locked horns with the doctrinaire Marxist, and anti-9/11 Truth, bookstore manager. The clinching argument was that 9/11 Truth did NOT distract from "real anti-war organizing." In fact, this energetic guy claimed, he knew from experience that he could convert military families to 9/11 Truth in 20 minutes. He had just done it that week.

The guy was Kevin Barrett. At the time, he had not written a book on 9/11 and still had a university job. Four years later, he's got a couple of books out, good ones, he's been blackballed by the local U. of W. Madison. The man has suffered outrageous torts and humiliation for standing up for truth, for freedom of religion, for faith. He is seeking a good lawyer to persue a religious discrimination suit.

Barrett appeared on Hannity and Colmes, but repeatedly refused to appear on The O'Reilly Factor until his teaching semester was over. O'Reilly got so upset he sputtered an unprofessional death threat on air (see sidebar on the right for a bit more on that).

Barrett's words are provocative. His religion and worldview run counter to much of mainstream American culture. In just this brief interview, I got a sense of how twisted, how out of step with 1/5th of the world, how anti-Islamic, much of America's basic reality is. There's plenty of controversey about this guy, and a lot of loose talk. I jumped in and got him to answer a few questions:

1. Do you believe that the holocaust happened?

Which holocaust? I think it is utterly bizarre that only one of the many holocausts, the killing of a large number of Jews by the Nazis during World War II, has become THE Holocaust, an object of worship and sacred narrative (myth). It is even more bizarre that this sacred narrative's main purpose is to justify the ongoing holocaust in Palestine.

So yes, I do believe that the holocaust in Palestine that your tax dollars are paying for happened, and continues to happen, and will continue to happen until we decide to stop this holocaust that WE are perpetrating, rather than making a fetish out of one perpetrated by our enemies more than sixty years ago. And I believe that the Palestinian holocaust has been made possible by the creation of a sacred narrative about Nazis killing Jews during World War II. While I do believe that Nazis killed a large numbers of Jews during World War II -- I have not studied the issue enough to know how many were killed under what circumstances -- I do not understand why this story has become sacred, nor do I understand why it is used to justify the ongoing holocaust in Palestine. After all, it was Germans, not Palestinians, who killed Jews during World War II.

What about the allegations going around about you saying that Germany's invasion of Poland was "worse?" Did you say that, and if so, why.

This story was invented by Brian Good, who stalked and sexually harassed a prominent 9/11 activist by inflicting his sick fantasies on her until she was forced to beg for help from other activists, including me, to get him to leave her alone. According to her, some of Good's sick sexual fantasies that he inflicted on her against her will, despite her repeated pleas that he stop, involved me. This twisted sexual obsession with me is apparently the reason he continues to cyber-stalk me, tirelessly trolling the internet for anything I post, or anything involving me, and responding with venomous attacks. He has done the same thing to William Rodriguez, whom he also apparently has a crush on. Which is somewhat more understandable -- Willie IS a lot better looking than I am.

Good's allegation here isn't even close to what I actually said. What I said, and continue to say, is that under international law, aggression is the supreme war crime. As the supreme war crime, aggression is by definition a greater crime than torture, genocide, or any other war crime. This is not my opinion. It is a fact attested to by international law experts, including those I have interviewed on my radio show such as William Pepper and Francis Boyle. See: http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2009/08/aggression-supreme-war-crime-fact-not.html

By launching World War II (technically via the invasion of Poland) the Nazis instigated the killing of more than 50 million people. Those complicit in the aggression were hanged at Nuremburg for aggression, the supreme war crime. Others were prosecuted for lesser crimes, including genocide. The fact that genocide is a lesser crime than aggression under international law may not please everyone, especially apologists for U.S. aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan and Zionist aggression in Palestine, but it is a fact nonetheless.

"To initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
-Nuremburg tribunal

2. What is your take on the work of Jim Fetzer these days. Some associate you two, since you did a radio show together, but I heard you distance yourself from him on air a bit recently.

Jim and I became friends in the summer of 2006, before the Scholars split that made Jim controversial in the 9/11 truth community. When we did a radio show together, each of us produced our own portions of the show independently, and were solely responsible for our own broadcasts, not the other guy's. I have always agreed with Jim about many things, and disagreed with him about other things. One thing we disagreed about was the work of Steven Jones--Jim often attacked Steve, unfairly I thought, while I consistently defended Steve, even when it pissed Jim off. (I have often had Steve as a radio guest.) As it turned out, I was right. Steve's work has provided us with some of our best evidence for the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, while the work of rival researcher Judy Wood, which Jim championed in 2007, has not. Today, Jim admits the value of Steve's discovery of evidence for nanothermate, and he's gotten over his infatuation with Judy -- who, by the way, has done some good work as well as some (to me) baffling work.

I didn't like the way Jim handled the Scholars for 9/11 Truth split. I think he was manipulated and egged on by the deplorable Rick Siegal, just as Steve and his friends were manipulated and egged on by the only somewhat less deplorable Victoria Ashley. It was a real tragedy for the 9/11 truth movement, and Jim's ego bears a lot of the responsibility.

I am still friends with Jim. But I don't approve of his methods of propagating his ideas about the possibility that the videos of planes hitting the World Trade Center were altered, that one or both of the alleged crashes may have been faked, and so on. (I also disagree with his opinions -- I think real planes were used, most obviously with the South Tower hit -- but that isn't important, what's important is the methodology, not the conclusion.) Because this issue has been very divisive in the 9/11 truth movement, I wish Jim would stop getting into internet flame wars about it, and instead write a detailed, balanced, exhaustively-documented scholarly article making his case. In early 2008 I resigned from his Scholars group pending his publication of such an article, which has not been forthcoming.

Despite his lack of politesse, PR savvy, and sound scholarship on the "no planes" issue, Jim has done a lot of good work for 9/11 truth that has been under-appreciated due to the firestorm over his championing of controversial theories. His introduction to 9/11 truth Powerpoint talk is one of the best, and I've seen him convince many good-sized audiences here in the Midwest that 9/11 was an inside job. Jim is single-handedly responsible for getting Jesse Ventura on board with JFK truth, which is what led to Jesse supporting 9/11 truth. As a friend of Jesse, Jim was able to get Jesse and me on Richard Greene's national Air America show. I understand Jim will be doing an appearance with Korey Rowe of Loose Change in Argentina on 9/11/09, and it's slated to get nationwide media coverage there. In this one event, he'll probably do more to spread the message to the unconverted than all his critics combined have done in three years. (Disputes between the already-converted are relatively unimportant, what counts is reaching new people.) I think it's time for the anti-Fetzer brigade to call off the witch-hunt and return to responsible critique.

3. Have you pursued all legal recourse to get your university job back? Tell us about this process, and what are you doing for work these days?

I have no money to pursue any legal avenues. I did find a lawyer who looked into the possibilities for free, and he reported that it's impossible to sue universities here under local anti-political discrimination ordinances because they're state institutions and don't answer to local law. (There is no state law here in Wisconsin against political discrimination.) I could try a religious discrimination suit, arguing that since 80% of Muslims think 9/11 was an inside job refusing to hire "conspiracy theorists" rules out most Muslim applicants and is therefore discriminatory. But the odds of winning a juicy settlement aren't good enough to attract any pro bono lawyers. If any wealthy philanthropists out there want to fund a religious discrimination lawsuit, they may contact me at kbarrett(at)merr.com.

Meanwhile I'm writing books (most recently Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters), hosting radio shows (see truthjihad.com/radio.htm), working with a nonprofit that sponsors a local mosque and various educational projects, raising a ton of vegetables (well, maybe half a ton), and home-schooling my two sons. My wife has been the main family breadwinner since I was de facto blacklisted from teaching in 2007.


4. Discuss Obama's relationship with AIPAC. He gave a campaign speech there that seemed pro-Zionist, and the incluence of Rahm Emanuel is a factor. But with the Presidential Medal of Freedom awarded to Israel critic Mary Robinson, some say that Obama is beginning to "buck" their influence, are those allegations true?
[see LA Times for more on former Irish President Mary Robinson, etc.]

I don't think Obama has much power, so it isn't a question of his relationship with AIPAC. The real government is behind the scenes, and elections don't change it. The real question is the relationship between Zionists, both the radical and moderate varieties, and the U.S. power elite. The fact is, the Zionists, taken as a whole, pretty much run U.S. foreign policy, especially regarding the Middle East and Central Asia. That's because a disproportionate share of big banking and finance is in the hands of (Jewish) Zionists (surveys of the 100 richest Americans show that about half are Jews, despite Jews being only 2% of the population, and you can bet that these plutocrats are all pro-Zionist); a wildly disproportionate amount of the money given to national political candidates comes from (Jewish) Zionists (some estimates put it at around 50% of the total); and an even more wildly disproportionate percentage of media decision makers are (Jewish) Zionists (some estimates put it well over 50% -- see http://zionismexplained.org/media/media.html . (Since Zionism by definition is Jewish nationalism, and since the vast majority of the Jews in these positions are pro-Zionist, I think it's okay to use terms like the "Jewish lobby" and to talk about the disproportionate presence of Jewish Zionists in the power elite and especially the mainstream media.)

As I see it, 9/11 was basically a Mossad-assisted coup d'etat by hardline Zionists (see mujca.com/luttwak.htm). The work of James Petras, which deals with the post-9/11 agenda rather than 9/11 per se, makes a very strong case for this interpretation. And there is plenty of evidence, much of it ignored or downplayed by many in the 9/11 truth movement, implicating the Mossad and American Zionists (such as Netanyahu buddy Larry Silverstein, PNAC, etc.) in 9/11 itself.

I don't think the forces behind Obama (the "liberal" wing of the CIA-CFR-Bildeberger-NSC-Trilateralist plutocracy) have fully undone the 9/11 Zio-extremist coup d'etat. But they've certainly tempered it. These forces prevented the theft of nuclear weapons from Minot Air Force Base--nuclear weapons that might have been used against an American city--in August 2007, then put the kibosh on the Zio-extremists' plans for nuking Iran. They even sent Admiral Mullen to read the riot act to the Israelis, telling them "no more Liberty incidents" (code for "no more 9/11s").

This of course was before the election of Obama--which shows that the real government changed in summer-fall 2007, not when Obama was elected. Presidents, as my friend Faiz Khan says, barely qualify as middle management.

In any case, the Zio-extremists may be temporarily out of power, but they're waiting in the wings. To stop them, I think the 9/11 truth movement, and everybody else who cares about truth and justice, should educate themselves about the history of Zionist false-flag terror, Zionist control of U.S. media and finance, the horrors of the Palestinian holocaust, and so on, and then build a popular movement to de-Zionize the USA. James Petras said on my radio show that we U.S. Americans need to wage a national liberation struggle against Israeli occupation of our country, and I think he has a point.

Lest I be misunderstood, I am attacking a certain Jewish-Zionist elite, not ordinary American Jews, who would be as horrified as anyone else if they came face to face with the crimes of Zionism head-on. I have lots of Jewish guests on my radio shows, regularly stress that Jews opposed the 9/11 wars more than any other U.S. ethnic group, and worked overtime to promote the work of 9/11 truth novelist Steve Alten, who happens to be a pro-Zionist Jew, but who also happens to be a great guy and a huge asset to the 9/11 truth movement. I worked with a Jewish co-editor and contributors to 9/11 and American Empire v.2: Christians, Jews and Muslims Speak Out. I am anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic. And though I am anti-Zionist, I don't let that get in the way of my personal relationships with pro-Zionist people, who are simply mistaken on one issue--hardly a capital offense! (I'm sure I disagree with everybody on earth about at least one important issue!)

5. Finally, what can attendees of the We Demand Transparency expect to get from your talk? What is new, what may be 'controversial?'

Unlike almost everybody else in this movement, and outside it, I try very hard to never give the same talk twice. So the whole thing will be new.

My talk will examine the mainstream Muslim point of view on 9/11, Zionism, imperialism, and related issues. I expect it to be highly controversial, because Americans have been programmed to find many elements of that point of view unacceptable. For example, the mainstream Muslim point of view rejects the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine and regards Israel as an illegitimate settler colony; doubts some elements of the standard Western version of the holocaust; views such demonized figures as Ahmadinejad and Bin Laden (who by the way deplored 9/11 and strongly denied involvement) in a relatively favorable light; and wonders when ordinary Americans are going to rise up and free themselves from Zionist occupation. I think Americans need to hear the reasons why so many Muslims hold these views.

Barrett Speaks at WDT!

12 Noon - 1:00 PM, 9/12/2009
Kevin Barrett
(Author, "Truth Jihad Against the 911 Big Lie")

Full schedule here

 

Meet the Muslim the Right Loves to Hate

"My talk will examine the mainstream Muslim point of view on 9/11, Zionism, imperialism, and related issues. I expect it to be highly controversial, because Americans have been programmed to find many elements of that point of view unacceptable."

Kevin Barrett on the O'Reilly Factor.

Bill O'Reilly also said this about Barrett:
This guy would have been gone at Boston University, my alma mater, in a heartbeat. The Chancellor there, John Silber, this guy would be, you know, in the Charles River floating down towards the harbor.
Which caused Scholars for 9/11 Truth to state:

When public threats can be made to a citizen's life for expressing his opinions on a controversial topic and neither the government nor the media respond," he observed, "that is a sure sign we are living in a fascist state."