Kevin Barrett is a renowned American journalist, writer and former university lecturer. He has taught English, French, Arabic, American Civilization, Humanities, African Literature, Folklore, and Islam at colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay area, Paris, and Madison, Wisconsin. Being a Muslim convert, Dr. Barrett is a founding member of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance (MUJCA) and member of the Scientific Panel for the Investigation of 9/11 (SPINE).
According to Salem News, In July 2004 he rashly rejected a plum post-doc at the University of California because it was funded by the 9/11-disinformation-sponsoring CIA-linked Ford Foundation. “In the summer of 2006, Republican state legislators and Fox newscasters demanded that Barrett be fired from his job teaching an introductory Islam class at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but the University refused to buckle, and Barrett got high marks from his students.”In fall 2006 Barrett began hosting an Internet talk show weekly on Republic Broadcasting Network titled “Truth Jihad Radio.” Twice a week he had another Internet talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called “The Dynamic Duo.”
Dr. Barrett is internationally renowned for his well-substantiated researches on the 9/11 which he describes as a false-flag operation and inside job that took place with the foreknowledge of the high-ranking personalities inside the U.S. executive structure.
He wrote three articles for the Madison’s Capital Times newspaper in which he tried to reveal the truth behind the 9/11 attacks; however, the newspaper was shortly closed after running his articles.
Kevin Barrett kindly accepted my interview request and joined me in an in-depth conversation, answering my questions regarding the 9/11 attacks and the influence of Israeli lobby over the U.S. policymakers. What follows is the complete text of my interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett, journalist, writer and university lecturer. Kourosh Ziabari: You have selected the title “Truth Jihad” for your personal website. Although being functionally and semantically a sublime and precious concept in Islamic thought, Jihad has been constantly vilified and denigrated by the extremist neo-cons and Zionists who want to portray a distorted and black image of Islam. They claim that Jihad is tantamount to terrorism and Muslims who follow the principle of Jihad are terrorists as well; however, the reality is that Jihad is a mobilized, logically sustained and concerted confrontation with those who want to plunder your values and treasures and violate your rights. Although you’re a Muslim convert, you are a Western citizen; however, you have selected an Islamic name for your website. Would you please explain about this selection for me and my readers?
Kevin Barrett: Being a Western citizen and a convert does not make me any less of a Muslim. Islam, after all is a deen, a religion and a way of life, not a race or ethnicity.
In any case, jihad is a noble religious concept. As you know, the word means “effort” or “striving.” In one sense, jihad is the complement of “Islam” whose root meaning is “surrender” to God. So jihad means to exert effort in the cause of God.
One very intense form of effort, exertion or striving in the cause of God is armed struggle in defense of the community. Those who wage this form of jihad risk everything in an all-out struggle in service to the community and to God.
Today, Islam as a deen, and the world Muslim community, is under attack. 9/11 was a mass human sacrifice designed to ritually inaugurate a New World Order of global government by satanists and atheists. With Christianity and the other big religions co-opted or neutered, only Islam stands between the perpetrators of 9/11 and their goal of a New World Order. Under these circumstances, is incumbent upon Muslims to wage effective jihad in self-defense and in defense of our religion, and in defense of all of our fellow human beings and our planet, fi sabili llah [in the way of God].
After thinking things through, I have concluded that the most effective way that I can wage jihad is by wielding the weapon of truth — especially the truth about 9/11. The 9/11 perpetrators seem to have made several big mistakes and left unmistakable evidence incriminating themselves. Their single biggest mistake, apparently, was failing to demolish World Trade Center Building 7 on the morning of 9/11; presumably due to some logistical problem, they had to wait to demolish it until late that afternoon. Anyone who spends a few minutes informing themselves about WTC-7 must either choose intellectual dishonesty, or admit that 9/11 was an inside job. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxmdYOorqs0
When Americans and Westerners face the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, their attitude toward Islam, and the New World Order’s war on Islam, changes radically. They realize that they, and Muslims, share a common enemy. They become deserters from the war on Islam, and join the oppressed peoples of the world, and the bearers of the scriptures, in a common struggle for justice.
While I am very serious about waging this “truth jihad,” I realize that Western culture fears and loathes the word “jihad.” So I use a technique common in certain forms of comic literature — for example, the novel Don Quixote — of being simultaneously serious and humorous. I make fun of myself by using hyperbole (exaggeration) in order to play the role of the “crazy radical jihadi for truth.” What is most hilarious, and most deeply serious, is that this “crazy radical jihadi” character I’m playing, like King Lear’s fool, is the only sane character in the play, the only one who understands and tells the whole, painful truth. The humor makes my uncompromisingly honest message palatable for Western audiences. As the saying goes, “If you tell the truth, make it funny or they’ll kill you.”
By accepting this role, which Allah’s qadr seems to have prepared for me, I am straddling the boundary between Islamic and Western culture, between seriousness and humor, between reality and imagination, in a unique way. As an American Muslim literary scholar with an odd Irish sense of humor, and a whole lot of outrage about 9/11 and the 9/11 wars, this is my way of waging jihad fi sabili llah.
KZ: What’s your precise stance on the 9/11 attacks? Do you believe that the U.S. officials had foreknowledge of the incident? Do you think that it was an inside job or a false flag operation? Have you traced any sign of the Israel’s involvement in the attacks?
KB: To know means to believe based on sufficient evidence. So I know, not just believe, that 9/11 was a false-flag attack, that many individuals at or near the top of the US Executive Branch, military, and intelligence apparatus were complicit in the attack, and that the state of Israel and its American agents were heavily involved. This is the inescapable conclusion of anyone who reads David Ray Griffin’s books on the subject, alongside Bollyn’s Solving 9/11, with an open mind.
KZ: Your publication “Bin Laden’s Dead, the Tape is Phony” is considered to be the first pro-9/110-truth op-ed ever written and published in a mainstream media outlet. You have written three such op-eds in “Capital Times” of Madison. Why don’t the mainstream media publish op-eds and articles revealing the truth of 9/11 attack? Why do they shun the publication of materials which are critical of the mainstream interpretation of the attacks?
KB: The American mainstream media are owned by just a few huge corporations, and thoroughly penetrated by the CIA. Google “Operation Mockingbird”. The owners and key decision-makers of these outlets are disproportionately Jewish and pro-Zionist (see Philip Weiss’s “Do Jews Dominate in American Media? And So What if We Do?”). Deep down inside, a great many of these Zionists suspect the truth about 9/11, and are terrified that if revealed it could trigger an anti-Jewish pogram and/or the destruction of Israel. Additionally, many Americans, Jewish and otherwise, who are not Zionists, feel threatened by the possibility that the truth about 9/11 would reveal them as fools, and perhaps even annihilate their whole world-view. It is difficult for journalists who are trained to believe that America is an exceptional nation, and that America’s leaders always have good intentions, to believe that their own leaders would conspire in the ritual slaughter of thousands of their own people. The few who are cynical enough to realize how evil their leaders are, are also cynical enough to know on which side their bread is buttered. Everyone in the media knows that breathing a word of truth about 9/11 will kill your career. It may not be coincidental that shortly after publishing my three 9/11 truth op-eds, the Capital Times was closed down by the company that owned it, leaving Madison with only one newspaper: The lying, corrupt Wisconsin State Journal.
KZ: In October 2004, the 9/11 hero William Rodriguez filed a lawsuit against the then President George W. Bush and 155 other parties and accused them of complicity in the 9/11 attacks. He claimed that the Twin Towers were devastated by means of “controlled demolitions” which the members of New York fire department were ordered on instructions of the CIA. Is it true that FDNY conspired with Larry Silverstein under the patronage of CIA to deliberately destroy the Twin Towers?
KB: The short answer is “yes.” But it should be noted that the NY Fire Department was not complicit as a whole department. Rather, its leadership is penetrated by the CIA and perhaps Mossad, in the same way that state governments, state and local police departments, the FBI and other agencies are penetrated by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. According to Jesse Ventura, upon his inauguration as Governor of Minnesota, a group of state government officials who were also undercover CIA officers summoned him to a briefing in which it was made clear who was really running the State of Minnesota. The FDNY is undoubtedly infiltrated as well. Larry Silverstein’s hesitation in mentioning the “er…Fire Department Commander” who decided to “pull” WTC-7 suggests that this “FDNY Commander” was actually a high level intelligence operative whose job may have included a cover position in FDNY.
KZ: Physicist Dr. Crockett Grabbe has pointed out in a 2007 article that the NIST account of the 9/11 attacks has been thoroughly erroneous, unrealistic and fallacious. He has pointed out that “the rapidly expanding huge concrete dust clouds from the towers, the very-quick appearance of multiple squibs on all 3 collapsing buildings, and the destruction of hundreds of autos for several blocks around the World Trade Center from these squibs” indicate that the Twin Towers did not simply collapse as a result of the planes crashing into the towers, but due to explosive materials. Jim Hoffman’s article also attests to the same fact and admits the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples. What does this fact signify? Who should be held accountable if we admit that the explosive materials brought down the Twin Towers?
KB: Everyone who is lying about it and who should know better — meaning the entire GW Bush Administration, the top levels of the military and intelligence command, all of the NIST people responsible for the scientific fraud represented by NIST’s reports on the WTC, and a great many others (see www.whodidit.org/) should be immediately arrested and aggressively interrogated, with relatively leniency offered in exchange for the whole truth delivered in a timely manner. If our judicial system cannot do this, citizens, including honest police and military, should arm themselves in preparation to make citizens arrests in what will amount to a second American revolution. Likewise, foreign nations ought to demand the truth about 9/11, and to cut off all relations with the USA until war crimes prosecutions reveal the full truth about 9/11 and the 9/11 wars.
KZ: You are a founding member of the Muslim-Jewish-Christina Alliance which is aimed at improving interfaith dialogue, coexistence and understanding in light of the 9/11 events. It’s a very fantastic goal to bring together the followers of divine religion and improve mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence between them; however, there are people who don’t tolerate this religious convergence and want to sow the seeds of incompatibility, dissention and strife between the Muslims, Jews and Christians. They are extremist and radical conservatives who follow the Marx’s viewpoint that religion is the “opium of masses”, hence downgrading interfaith dialogue and undermining it. How is it possible to realize an all-out, all-encompassing interfaith dialogue while the media moguls, hawkish statesmen and warmongering politicians want to bring about conflict and disagreement between the followers of divine religions?
KB: That is a very good question! I am disappointed at the slow progress of 9/11 truth in the Jewish and Christian communities, and by the failure of the global Muslim community to offer its full support to the 9/11 truth movement. The New World Order atheists and satanists have cleverly pitted the revealed religions against each other, while fostering an atmosphere of hopelessness and despondency that prevents many from taking action. Since Muslims by and large are better acquainted with the facts, both about 9/11, and about the brother- and sisterhood between good (more…)
A Top Secret Military Specialist, who was injured in the Pentagon explosion on September 11, 2001 and who sued Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force General Richard Myers for conspiracy, terrorism, constitutional violations, and for personal injuries, will have her case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (Connecticut) on April 5.
April Gallop saw disturbing things up close that have not been reported in the media, advises her attorney, William Veale. An independent judicial hearing of that and other evidence will allow review of the official explanation of the events on 9/11, which numerous experts claim to be impossible according to the laws of physics.
On March 15th, 2010, the lower court dismissed with prejudice the case of Gallop v. Cheney, et. al., ruling that the Complaint was frivolous and based on “cynical delusion and fantasy.” Judge Denny Chin refused to consider any other claims, including those backed by testimony of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta to the 9/11 Commission about former vice president Dick Cheney’s stand down order. Gallop appealed the decision.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, she was ordered by her supervisor to go directly to work at the Pentagon, before dropping off her ten-week-old son Elisha at day care. Amazingly, the infant was given immediate security clearance upon arrival.
The instant Gallop turned on her computer an enormous explosion blew her out of her chair, knocking her momentarily unconscious.
Escaping through the hole reportedly made by Flight 77, she saw no signs of an aircraft – no seats, luggage, metal, or human remains. Her watch (and other clocks nearby) had stopped at 9:30-9:31 a.m., seven minutes before the Pentagon was allegedly struck (at 9:38 a.m.).
The 9/11 Commission reported that “by no later than 9:18 a.m., FAA centers in Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Washington were aware that Flight 77 was missing and that two aircraft had struck the World Trade Center.”
Why then were there no anti-aircraft defenses, Gallop asks, or alarm warnings inside the Pentagon?
Gallop was briefed by officials not to tell her story in public; she also received an email from a Fox News reporter who had been told by the Pentagon not to interview her.
Gallop now believes that officials within the Bush Administration conspired to destroy the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and WTC 7 – the third building brought down at 5:20 p.m. that day – with pre-placed explosives detonated after the planes hit.
Gallop’s case relies on virtually all forms of evidence admissible in court, but significantly, on published scientific evidence that residues of these explosives were found in the rubble after the attacks. In its totality the proffered case establishes that the government hypothesis – that the buildings collapsed due to fire in combination with the airplane impacts – is scientifically untenable.
In addition, Ms. Gallop will, through photographic and other physical evidence, as well as the testimony of a multitude of military and civilian survivors, demonstrate the impossibility of her having lived through the attack on the Pentagon if it had taken place as the government and the defendants claim.
A December 2010 poll conducted by the prestigious Emnid Institute, and reported in the German magazine “Welt der Wunder,” revealed that 89.5% of German respondents do not believe the official story of 9/11. German Federal Judge, Deiter Dieseroth, stated in December 2009 that:
“No independent court has applied legal procedures to review the available evidence on who was responsible for the attacks.”
The stakes in this case are epic, including the possibility of an overwhelming transformation of the world’s understanding of history, not to mention American citizens’ relationship with their government.
The case of Gallop v. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers will be heard on Tuesday, April 5 at 11 a.m. at the Federal Courthouse at 141 Church Street in New Haven, Connecticut.
The reaction of establishment politicians and their corporate media mouthpieces to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments about 9/11 is akin to that of a guilty child caught with his hand in the cookie jar and chocolate smeared all over his face.
The move to inflate the situation by creating a media circus will ultimately backfire as more people discover that, unfortunately, the Iranian President’s comments, although cloaked in an ever present anti-Israel sentiment, are accurate.
Ahmadinejad stated simply that millions of people believe there is evidence to suggest the 9/11 attacks were an inside job of some kind – a statement of fact, no matter how repugnant he who delivers it may be.
US President Barack Obama has declared he is “outraged and offended” by the comments, later giving an interview to the BBC’s Persian service, in which he told the Iranian people that the comments were “offensive and hateful”.
As ever, the truth of the matter has been distorted beyond recognition as a minority of UN delegates walking out on Ahmadinejad’s speech yesterday was transformed overnight into a full scale revolt by the corporate media.
The EU, we are told, was so disgusted with Ahmadinejad’s comments that “all representatives of the 27 nations of the EU walked out”.
However, in 2008 when the European parliament hosted a debate on the events of 9/11, the evidence that contradicts the official explanation and the reasons why an independent investigation should be carried out, there was no outcry whatsoever.
When European member of parliament Giulietto Chiesa and former German defence minister Andreas von Bulow led the debate on 9/11 inconsistencies, no one walked out and the newspapers remained devoid of front page headlines, because there was no opportunity to smear and discredit the issue based on the characters of those raising it.
Similarly, when prominent Japanese politician Yukihisa Fujita held debates and spoke on questions surrounding 9/11, prompting Parliamentarians of various countries to consider asking the UN to investigate, no establishment politicians denounced him and the newspapers remained devoid of front page headlines.
When the former President of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, stated that in his view 9/11 was a vast intelligence operation overseen by the U.S. intelligence apparatus, the newspapers remained devoid of front page headlines.
When several members of the officially appointed 9/11 Commission stated that the intelligence
February 09, 2010 “Information Clearing House“ — Americans have been losing the protection of law for years. In the 21st century the loss of legal protections accelerated with the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” which continues under the Obama administration and is essentially a war on the Constitution and U.S. civil liberties.
The Bush regime was determined to vitiate habeas corpus in order to hold people indefinitely without bringing charges. The regime had acquired hundreds of prisoners by paying a bounty for “terrorists.” Afghan warlords and thugs responded to the financial incentive by grabbing unprotected people and selling them to the Americans.
The Bush regime needed to hold the prisoners without charges because it had no evidence against the people and did not want to admit that the U.S. government had stupidly paid warlords and thugs to kidnap innocent people. In addition, the Bush regime needed “terrorists” prisoners in order to prove that there was a terrorist threat.
As there was no evidence against the “detainees” (most have been released without charges after years of detention and abuse), the U.S. government needed a way around U.S. and international laws against torture in order that the government could produce evidence via self-incrimination. The Bush regime found inhumane and totalitarian-minded lawyers and put them to work at the U.S. Department of Justice (sic) to invent arguments that the Bush regime did not need to obey the law.
The Bush regime created a new classification for its detainees that it used to justify denying legal protection and due process to the detainees. As the detainees were not U.S. citizens and were demonized by the regime as “the 760 most dangerous men on earth,” there was little public outcry over the regime’s unconstitutional and inhumane actions.
As our Founding Fathers and a long list of scholars warned, once civil liberties are breached, they are breached for all. Soon U.S. citizens were being held indefinitely in violation of their habeas corpus rights. Dr. Aafia Siddiqui an American citizen of Pakistani origin might have been the first.
Dr. Siddiqui, a scientist educated at MIT and Brandeis University, was seized in Pakistan for no known reason, sent to Afghanistan, and was held secretly for five years in the U.S. military’s notorious Bagram prison in Afghanistan. Her three young children were with her at the time she was abducted, one an eight-month old baby. She has no idea what has become of her two youngest children. Her oldest child, 7 years old, was also incarcerated in Bagram and subjected to similar abuse and horrors.
Siddiqui has never been charged with any terrorism-related offense. A British journalist, hearing her piercing screams as she was being (more…)
After a 20-minute conversation with Congressman Brad Sherman’s office on Friday, October 10, 2009, I hung up the phone not believing what I had just heard. Congressman Brad Sherman represents the 27th district, one of the geographically largest districts in Southern California representing around 600,000 constituents. The congressman’s policy advisor in Washington, Erin Prangley, ignores the question as to how they got there. She kept repeating that the Congressman’s position is expressed by the report published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), as recommended by the San Fernando Valley chapter of the American Institute of Architects.
When it comes to the subject of the September 11th terrorist attacks, it appears that many political offices become a Bermuda triangle, where reports are lost and never seen again along with common sense, logic, basic math skills and the desire to protect the rights of the American people. To be fair however this political black hole wasn’t created after 9/11. On September 10th 2001 Donald Rumsfeld gave a press conference where he told the American people that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3 trillion dollars. That is no typo – that’s trillion with a “t”. Of course, the next day almost 3000 Americans lives were lost, along with the World Trade Center ,and the issue of the missing $2.3 trillion got sucked away into the 9/11 black hole.
If one could travel into this sucking vortex and come out on the other side one might be amazed at what one would find. Perhaps E. Howard Hunt’s deathbed confession for being involved in the JFK assassination, Or the reasons why Lt. Col. Michael Aquino (who founded the Temple of Set Church of Satan) would be allowed to work for the U.S. Army psychological warfare department.
Or perhaps we will find the four black box recorders that supposedly vaporized when the airlines struck the towers, keeping in mind of course that one of the hijackers’ passports survived virtually unscathed and found before the collapse of the towers. (Maybe we should be making skyscrapers and black box recorders out of paper.) Or maybe will find the two nano-thermite papers that were delivered to Congressman Brad Sherman’s office.
A nine-member international team of chemists, physicists, and others published a paper in early 2009 entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe” (hereinafter, the nano-thermite paper). These scientists used the scientific method to analyze samples of World Trade Center dust that could not have been contaminated by cleanup activities at Ground Zero. They found red-gray chips that were attracted by a magnet, examined the various crystalline and non-crystalline structures in the chips, shot electrons into the chips and looked at the X-ray spectra that came out, and heated the samples and watched how they responded. They compares these results to cured paint chips and to known highly advanced energetic nano-materials. They concluded that “the red layer … is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
Pardon the inevitable pun: this is an explosive discovery.
When NIST was confronted with the possibility of thermite or other types of explosive or incendiary material, they wrote that “a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged (more…)
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
It was a big shock to me to discover early on after 9/11 how many of my “progressive” friends were unwilling to even discuss the evidence regarding what happened on 9/11. “I don’t believe in conspiracy theories,” was and remains a near unanimous “mantra”. Now, surely not all these people are on the CIA’s payroll. I’ve maintained all along that the problem is predominantly psychological — it is fear: People don’t want to believe that we’re so far gone that something like this can be done to us, that treason and mass murder can be conducted in broad daylight, and that it can be completely gotten away with. They grasp at straws: “It would take too many people,” “surely someone would come forward,” “they couldn’t keep something that big secret,” “They’re evil but they’re not that evil!” And so on. These are direct quotes from people whose political points of view are way left of center.
People who hold such attitudes aren’t interested in “evidence” no matter who it comes from. They’ve “made up their minds” already and reinforce not only “the system” external to themselves, but their already established inner systems of belief. (I see much the same thing going on within the 9/11 community in regards to the evidence at the Pentagon, by the way).
My point is that “fear” IS the driving force behind such attitudes — regardless whether one is on a “pay roll” or not, regardless whether one is under assumed or direct threat. (All we need do is look at what happened to many of the progressive leaders of the 1960s to know that such threats are real.) It takes a lot of courage to go up against the “limits put on the range of debate,” to risk not only ostracism and marginalization but to risk dealing with a deep truth that requires courage and does NOT have an “easy” answer. If the problem is the system itself then piecemeal “solutions” are nothing but band-aids that do nothing to address the real, fundamental problem. Worse, when it comes to something as big and traumatic as 9/11 is/was for the American psyche, it requires that one admit to one’s self that one’s fundamental understanding of what the system is and how it actually operates in terms of manipulating our perceptions, including our strategies for change, is pervasive, deeply rooted in the culture (such as the right/left paradigm) and ultimately requires a fundamental change in the way one understands one’s self. Those of us who have made “the paranoid shift” (see my post below) already understand that, although we need to keep the pressure on at every level of social organization, the fundamental problem IS the system and this can not be changed satisfactorily until the full depth of that system is laid bare for all to see.
Finally, what is needed is genuine hope. It wasn’t by accident that Obama’s primary appeal was “hope you can believe in.” People need to believe that there are genuine solutions to the real problems they face — without that one has to ask, why bother? ‘Things are bad but they could get worse, even out of control.’ This is a criticism I make of many such as Alex Jones who point to the ’cause’ but do not give a clear alternative. It isn’t enough to talk about the NWO agenda and what have you, what is needed is genuine strategies and alternatives that take into account the complexities of living in a post-industrial, highly technological world.
I think 9/11 Truth has come a long way, especially since 2006. But it is clear we’re entering a new phase where any hope of “a new investigation” is becoming increasingly unlikely even in the minds of those who (naïvely, IMO) hoped that such a thing was possible. I’ve never believed “the system” could or would allow itself to be used for this purpose. Calling for “a new investigation” has been a good way to entice some to look at the evidence but we need to move beyond it now because, absent “the system,” the investigation has been and continues to be on-going. The “system” did not and will not investigate 9/11 and what has emerged in its place is something completely new (in my experience): A group of loosely nit individuals who feel the direct personal need to confront the tyranny of lies that surrounds and permeates us.We have solid evidence that these lies exist, that the system itself perpetuates them, that, indeed, “the system” is itself a kind of “grand lie” within which we are all trapped.
The power that lies have to control us ends when we see them for what they are and this is what “the system” fears the most. The story that “the system” told us about 9/11 was a lie — an obvious and easily provable one — but it was only one lie in a tapestry of lies in which we participate day in and day out. Now something new is required of us and that is to find not only the truth of 9/11 but the truth of the whole system of lies within which we find ourselves. It is precisely this kind of shift in awareness and understanding that can redefine an entire civilization. If this is not a turning point in human history (and I believe it is) then there will be no future history worth talking about.
Comments Off
The reaction of establishment politicians and their corporate media mouthpieces to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments about 9/11 is akin to that of a guilty child caught with his hand in the cookie jar and chocolate smeared all over his face.