July 1, 2015
By Barrie Zwicker and Graeme MacQueen (Special to Truth and Shadows)
Despite his being an international outlaw, Kevin Barrett of Wisconsin has been able to turn out a prodigious number of truth-oriented radio programs, articles and published books, including his latest, the anthology We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo! Free Thinkers Question the French 9/11.
Oh, right, that’s why he’s an international outlaw. His status was confirmed, at least north of the Canada-U.S. border, by Canada’s hard right Harper government. At the end of May the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) turned Barrett back at the border in a hostile manner, preventing him from fulfilling a Toronto speaking engagement.
Barrett might not have had much more luck entering France or Israel, considering that many of the 22 contributors to We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo! provide evidence that those massacred in Paris did NOT die at the hands of jihadist Muslims but under orders from the Deep State, in a false flag operation with heavy Israeli involvement.
One can only hope that Barrett’s mistreatment at the hands of the politicized CBSA will spur sales of this important book.
Why is the book important? In part, because it’s a successful experiment—a rapidly-produced substantial response to a lethal state propaganda action.
Vincent Salandria, one of the first critics of the official narrative of the JFK assassination, wrote:
A successful political assassination is carried out to produce policy changes. Those policy changes generally take effect quickly. Consequently, it behooves a democratic citizenry to come promptly to their own reasoned conclusions about the killing of their head of state. Citizens cannot leave to their government, which under republican principles is their mere servant, to shape their thinking on such a vital issue. (1998)
Once a lethal event is staged—whether the event is the killing of a head of state, as in the case Salandria addressed, or a political massacre, as in the Charlie Hebdo case—the planned policy, legal and other actions and changes will rapidly be initiated: civil society’s critical response must also be rapid. Kevin Barrett rose to the occasion.
The obstacles are formidable. When elements of the state have facilitated or carried out the crime, the state will obscure the facts. It will drag its feet, produce distortions, red herrings, bombast, unbelievable coincidences and outright lies. It will do all in its considerable power to control the messaging while impeding citizens in their efforts to get at the facts. In this, the state has a distinct advantage.
After each lethal event a new truth community emerges. By definition, truth communities are chary about going beyond the evidence. Honouring evidence is at the heart of truth movements. By the same token, the state’s lies cannot always be clearly proven. Nevertheless, we must be courageously frank when we find official narratives unconvincing. We must proceed with what Bertrand Russell called “critical receptiveness.”
And this is the spirit of Barrett’s anthology. He offers readers a broad mix of thinkers with an array of approaches. Some authors concentrate on questioning the official account of the killings. Others leave this entirely to one side and concentrate on explaining how, regardless of what did or did not happen, the repressive response of the state must be rejected. Different authors, different emphases. But every contributor rejects “I am Charlie.”
The contributors provide a wide range of ideological positions as well as a range of views on religion. How unusual and refreshing for Muslims to be given a full voice. And to be able to read, in the same volume, an array of non-believers. (Vitchek: “I am an atheist, but I am not Charlie Hebdo!”) They all stir the pot as it must be stirred.
Do we, the reviewers, agree with everything in this book? Certainly not. Pro-humanist lefties that we are, we’re impatient with the heterosexist comments scattered through the volume, as well as with the claim, expressed by Barrett and one or two of the contributors, that secularism is a blight. Barrett writes:
Today, all of the features of pre-1960s American society would be decried by the radical secularists who have seized power in the West as symptoms of massive and systematic discrimination in favor of religious believers against non-believers.
We think it most dubious that pre-1960s American society is a worthy benchmark. And Barrett, uncharacteristically, has not made his claim well. More importantly, we don’t agree at all that “radical secularists” have seized power in the West; we would say it is militaristic market-fundamentalist capitalists, who see religious groupings as pawns while insincerely trotting out defenses of liberal freedoms when it suits them, that have seized power.
Barrett asks: “Will we have a pluralistic religious world or an irreligious McWorld of ruthlessly-enforced and globally-uniform ‘totalitarian tolerance?’ That is the real question underlying the debate about human rights and religion.”
But is that the real question? We don’t think so. We think that undermining a viciously immoral empire can be accomplished only by people of clear moral vision, but we have seen that some of these people will be conventionally religious and some not. Religion historically has not proven itself a reliable protector of life, or of the vulnerable, or of freedom, or of the creative spirit. That Pope Francis is proving such a departure from most of his predecessors highlights this opinion.
We don’t for a moment suggest, however, that we disagree with most of Barrett’s contributions. On the contrary, we find them informed, thoughtful and original.
Under Barrett’s guidance, the defence of Muslims and of Islam is a major theme of this book, and we believe this is as it should be. Several contributors explicitly or implicitly pose the question about the Hebdo killings: “Who benefitted?” The answer is that it could not be Muslims. Quite the reverse. Once again Muslims are the generalized scapegoats. Israel, however, was an immediate beneficiary—which, as several contributors note, was also the case with 9/11.
Specific or circumstantial linkages with Israel include, as John Andrew Morrow writes, that Charlie Hebdo “deliberately set out to offend the sensibilities of Christian and Muslim believers. Tellingly, however, the paper never provoked Jews.” Why?
Charlie Hebdo in fact was extra-sensitive about possibly offending Jews. Back in 2009 Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Maurice Sinet, known to the world as Siné, faced charges of “inciting racial hatred” for a column he wrote following the engagement of Jean Sarkozy to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, heiress of a major consumer electronics company. Commenting on rumours that Jean intended to convert from Catholicism to Judaism (Jessica’s religion) for social success, Siné quipped, “He’ll go a long way in life, that little lad.” Charlie Hebdo‘s editor, Philippe Val, said Sinet’s piece was offensive and asked Siné to apologize. Siné refused, saying, “I’d rather cut my balls off.” He was fired, which arguably saved his life. Plus he won the lawsuit.
Barbara Honegger writes that leading up to the Paris shootings “the lower house of the French Parliament voted to recommend the recognition of Palestine as a state, to which Israeli prime minister Netanyahu warned that France was making a grave mistake; and France had voted in favor of International Criminal Court (ICC) membership for Palestine at the United Nations. France was also spearheading an effort at the U.N. to pass a Security Council resolution to restart and conclude the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, and the French foreign minister had stated publicly that if it failed, France would officially recognize Palestine as a state. With France taking multiple official measures openly sympathetic to Muslim Palestinians, real Islamic zealots would never have chosen such a time to murder innocent French civilians.”
Other and broader strands in the book include:
- The abuse and manipulation of language in the service of hatred and mass murder. “Terrorist, like other terms of abuse directed mainly at Muslims, is a weaponized term designed to legitimize ethnically-specific mass murder. Obviously one cannot fight a war against an abstract noun; the term war on terror makes no sense except as part of a homicidal conditioning program. The bizarre notion of a ‘war on terror’ is a euphemism for ‘mass murdering Muslims’ who are the main recipients of the terrorist label,” Barrett writes in the opening piece.
- The psychological dimension of false flag ops. “The people who script false flag events like to hit our subconscious to get us going emotionally. So here we have a Jewish synagogue, and the street name is Crystal Street. It could be a coincidence,” says Danish investigative journalist Ole Dammegard. “They’re going for the emotional impact, following the problem-reaction-solution template. And the emotion this time is for us to feel sorry for the Jewish population and blame someone else, take the pressure off the state of Israel so they can continue doing what they’re doing.”
- The timing of false flag ops repeatedly shows that they cannot be pure happenstance. Besides Barbara Honegger’s points about France being sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, Webster Tarpley pointed out that President Hollande had also called for the lifting of sanctions against Russia and was preparing to sign a compromise agreement on Ukraine in Astana on January 15th. On January 7th, just eight days before this potential détente the Charlie Hebdo massacre derailed everything. The Astana meeting was called off.
- Additionally, Tarpley notes, Hollande in a radio interview two days before the massacre, “demanded an end to the economic sanctions imposed on Ukraine Russia. Second, he rejected the idea that France should militarily occupy Libya, a reckless adventure. Thirdly, he undercut both German Chancellor Merkel and Greek Prime Minister Samaras by assuming a very relaxed posture in regard to the January 25th Greek elections, in sharp contrast to the hysterical scare propaganda being heard around the EU about the apocalyptic dangers of a Syriza victory.
- “On the Russia sanctions,” Tarpley continues, “Hollande stated categorically: ‘I think the sanctions must stop now. They must be lifted if there is progress. If there is no progress the sanctions will remain…Mr. Putin does not want to annex eastern Ukraine. He has told me that…What he wants is to remain influential. What he wants is for Ukraine not to fall into the NATO camp.’
- “It was pure heresy,” concludes Tarpley, “one of the biggest breaks with the Anglo-Saxon lockstep since the death of de Gaulle.”
- The rampant hypocrisy of the Western world, the American Empire and perhaps Zionism most of all. “The hypocrisy and double standards have become stupendous,” writes Tony Hall. “They are marked in the disparity between hate speech laws designed to silence criticism of Israel and Zionism on the one hand and officialdom’s encouragement and embrace of expressions of Islamophobia on the other.”
- Freedom of speech is not absolute anywhere, and its defense is frequently entangled with the hypocrisies. As Lawrence Davidson writes: “On January 10th, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared war against ‘radical Islam’ because its practitioners had attacked ‘our values, which are universal.’ That last claim is an example of French hubris getting in the way of reality. For better or worse, French values are definitely not universal. They are just another version of culturally determined practices which, in terms of speech, set the limits of what the powers-that-be find permissible. These limits may be broader than the ones promoted by Islamists but, as we have seen, they are not open-ended.”
- This book could sport an internal awards system. We propose two categories. First is Paragraph Most Likely to be Remembered as a Tour de Force.
Our candidate is this by Thaddeus J. Kozinski: “When a narrative emerges whose explanation for a massively violent event and the meaning of the concomitant crisis becomes official, unquestionable, and authoritative; when it includes, and without empirical evidence or investigative inquiry, the assignation of innocence and exceptionalism to the victims, and utter depravity and terrifying power to the designated criminals; when dissent from this narrative is socially forbidden, even to the extent of legal harassment and prosecution; when it spawns behavior in contradiction with itself, such as the committing of acts of terror in the name of eradicating terrorism, or restricting and punishing free speech in the name of expanding and protecting it; when the narrative is immediately supported, echoed, and policed by the vast majority of the ruling classes, including both the mainstream and “alternative” (gate-keeping) left and right; when it successfully unites and synthesizes otherwise opposed factions of the [population]—liberals with neoconservatives, libertarians with statists, humanists with Nietzscheans, theists with atheists; when rational scrutiny and frank discussion of obvious explanatory holes in the narrative are forbidden; and when the ritualistic, annual remembrance of an event and recitation of its hallowed story, particularly the harrowing portrayal of the demonic villains to which it assigns all blame for both the increasing domestic strife among citizens and the perpetual Manichean war against the newest “enemy,” instills and evokes primordial fear and religious awe in the [population]; when the narrative of an event or series of connected events possesses all of these attributes, or even just a few of them, we know we are dealing with no chance and ordinary phenomenon.”
The Single Chapter to Read if You Don’t Read Any Others Award, for these reviewers, goes to former U.S. Congresswoman and courageous Truth and human rights activist Cynthia McKinney.
McKinney offers a very helpful theoretical framework. She envisions the world’s diverse campaigns against Deep State deception as parts of a unitary “global truth movement,” a “complex adaptive system” essential at this moment in history.
“Unmasking the Deep State,” she adds, “is the best way to thwart its accelerating merger with the Public State—a circumstance that could render the political process and the operation of the Public State irrelevant.”
McKinney also earns a Special Mention for Best Metaphor. After referring to the multi-pronged and successful campaign to unseat her after she served six Congressional terms with distinction she writes:
“Most of the current crop of Congresspersons know from my example that the Deep State is riddled with landmines of self-protection. Best to say nothing, do nothing, and know nothing—for any motion at all could set off a deadly device.”
This speaks volumes to the suppression and manipulation of legislators in the “free Western democracies.”
Thanks for mentioning me and citing my paragraph. I do want to say, though, that your negative view of “religion” is only true for false religions, which are essentially satanic sacreds. Catholicism is the only force that can defeat the Deep State, for it alone is fully imbued with the power and love of God, regardless of the sins and hypocrisies of its so-called proponents. spokesmen, and followers.
“…..that your negative view of “religion” is only true for false religions, which are essentially satanic sacreds. Catholicism is the only force that can defeat the Deep State, for it alone is fully imbued with the power and love of God….” – Thaddeus Kozinski
Could you please expand on that, Thaddeus? What is your criteria that define religion(s) as true or false?
False religions lead its adherents to practice scapegoating and become self-righteous. Jesus commands the opposite, and gives the grace to do it. The Catholic Church in the holiness of its doctrine, sacraments, and saints, as well as the works of mercy and civilization it has alone enabled, shows its divine origin and nature.
“The Catholic Church in the holiness of its doctrine, sacraments, and saints, as well as the works of mercy and civilization it has alone enabled, shows its divine origin and nature.” ~Thaddeus Kozinski
Well now that is a pretty bold statement there Thaddeus. Having read my fair share of history I would remark that the Catholic Church has more of it’s fair share of black marks against it. In fact your blanket statement I just quoted appears to me to contain the taint of the ” self-righteous” hubris you speak of in the first sentence.
You speak of “holiness”, what exactly do you mean by this phrase?
Holiness is God-like-ness. Being an image of Jesus Christ, Who is Himself is God.
Gee Thaddeus, your argument here isn’t impressing me as being in anyway rational. It’s not like we all haven’t heard this shuck & jive holy roller bullshit before.
So, let’s cut to the chase here, do you talk with Jesus? More importantly does he talk back? I mean are you getting this story from the source or are you buying some myth somebody wrote about a couple thousand years ago?
God said the Bible is true, and the Bible is true because God said so. Isn’t that where this all stands? A circular argument based on authority.
Just an added thought regarding your assertion “it (the Catholic Church) has alone enabled”;
I would point out that the invention of the Arabic Numeral system, and their contributions to mathematics and algebra, have had some of the most profound effects on civilization.
Surely Thaddeus, you know enough history to have learned that Constantine was in fact, Flavius Valerius Constantinus. Do you know the history of the Flavius family? He was the son of Flavius Valerius Do you know their connection with Judea? Who Josephus Flavius was?
Who actually wrote The Gospels?
For mi daa ble
…we know we are dealing with no chance and ordinary phenomenon. Quite right.
“We think it most dubious that pre-1960s American society is a worthy benchmark. And Barrett, uncharacteristically, has not made his claim well. More importantly, we don’t agree at all that “radical secularists” have seized power in the West; we would say it is militaristic market-fundamentalist capitalists, who see religious groupings as pawns while insincerely trotting out defenses of liberal freedoms when it suits them, that have seized power.” ~Zwicker & MacQueen
I can settle in with this statement as matching my own conceptualization.
I never even considered the thought that I was “charlie” – I would no longer give up my unique self for a bumpersticker phrase than join in organized religion or worship of the state.
As we gave religious tensions building up here with only a few comments made thus far, this may turn out to be one of the more interesting forums on T&S to date. I expect a lot of “My God is bigger than your God” bullshit to drop it’s stinking turds here, so I will be frank from the get go, I don’t buy any of those stories. Tuff titties for the ‘True Believers’ out there.
God whatever it is is far too big to be described by the small minds that invented organized religion. How is that for BIG HR1?
God is BIG!
Really really BIG!
“How is that for BIG HR1?”~RuffAdam
Infinitely BIG my friend! … [1≡∞]
Jesus Christ, God, invented the Catholic Church, not men, though he charged sinful men to run and guard it.
“he charged sinful men to run and guard it.”~Kozinski
How frickin’ clever of him!
Is this your version of a stand-up comedy skit Thaddeus?
If you reject Jesus Christ, He will be forced to reject you on your judgment day, for He does not force His love on anyone. I wouldn’t want the Lord of the Universe to be forced to depart from me because I spurned His truth and love, for whatever asinine pretext, like the ones you are giving here. No other revelation has the historical, rational, ethical, spiritual, theological, anthropological, cultural, psychological, emotional, intuitive credibility and winsomeness as the Revelation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, and further elaborated and developed by the Magisterium of His Church. You may be a truth seeker in other areas, and that’s why you are reading this excellent blog, but I am afraid you are a brainwashed sheeple in the area that matters most. Read “The Everlasting Man” by Chesterton, and “Dialogues with the Devil” by Taylor Caldwell.
“If you reject Jesus Christ, He will be forced to reject you on your judgment day,” Thaddeus Kozinski
Ah, the fear card. Thanks Thaddeus, that has me peeing in my pants… grin
I asked you some specific questions Thad, does Jesus talk to you? What does he say? What language does he speak in?
I don’t buy the devil shit anymore than I buy the man in the sky garbage. That doesn’t mean I do not believe in God however. But I am not here to convert you or to be converted by you. I’m not even here to discuss theology.
What I am here for is to discuss the political ramifications of false “tolerance” Charlie Hebdo style. Political intrigue and the real architecture of political power. Yes Political Power, such as that wielded by both the Church & State. Political Power like that wielded by the Synagogue & State. Like that wielded my the Mosque & State. Every one of these mainstream religions “run by sinful men” have more to do with political power than spiritual revelation.
So, if Jesus is your personal God, what do you two discuss? What sorts of promises do you make to one another? Is he teaching you to play the harp?
“If you reject Jesus Christ, he will be forced to reject you” (etc)
So be it. Why would I WANT to follow a ‘God’ who resorted to threats of ‘rejection’ (according to you) & coercion? Does a loving parent reject their child because the child rejects them?
If he exists at all, your God is not my God.
‘I could only love a God who dances’
If you spurn Him, he respects your freedom. That’s how much he loves us.
“Is this your version of a stand up comedy skit”?
If it’s not, it should be.
You’re the one practicing lame stand-up schtick. Whose your comic inspiration, Jackiie Mason?
“Jesus Christ, God, invented the Catholic Church, not men”
Just to clarify, the Catholic Church and its papacy *as we know it* certainly wasn’t. I understand that on Wikipedia, it says:
“Catholic tradition holds that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. The New Testament records Jesus’ activities and teaching, his appointment of the twelve Apostles, and his instructions to them to continue his work.”
But certainly, it was his followers who founded the first formal worship traditions… not Jesus and certainly not God.
Furthermore, it then goes on to later state:
“In the account of the Confession of Peter found in the Gospel of Matthew, Christ designates Peter as the “rock” upon which Christ’s church will be built. While some scholars do state Peter was the first Bishop of Rome,[a] others say that the institution of the papacy is not dependent on the idea that Peter was Bishop of Rome or even on his ever having been in Rome. Many scholars hold that a church structure of plural presbyters/bishops persisted in Rome until the mid-2nd century, when the structure of a single bishop and plural presbyters was adopted,[b] and that later writers retrospectively applied the term “bishop of Rome” to the most prominent members of the clergy in the earlier period and also to Peter himself. On this basis, Oscar Cullmann and Henry Chadwick question whether there was a formal link between Peter and the modern papacy, and Raymond E. Brown says that, while it is anachronistic to speak of Peter in terms of local bishop of Rome, Christians of that period would have looked on Peter as having “roles that would contribute in an essential way to the development of the role of the papacy in the subsequent church”.”
It was Constantine that brought the presbyters to conclave as the Council of Nicaea, AD 325.
Also, we do know that there were many books of “prophets” in existence up until the Council of Nicea decided which books were scripture and which ones were burned. Thanks to the notorious habit of early Christian leaders of destroying books/scrolls, we may never know what doctrine existed before the Council of Nicea.
By the time we get to the version of the Bible written during the reign of King James, there were very different political needs introduced that changed the character of “Christianity” yet again. And as we follow the developments and evolution from that time forward we have drastic splits and separations into many cults and subcults adding and subtracting ideas.
The time of Scofield writing his “Reference Bible” is a signal period when Zionism was fed into the equation by focusing on the Old Testament, and the “fire and brimstone” school of the “revival tents”.
“Christianity” comes in many makes and models and brand names. Even the name “Jesus” is relatively new.
An organism develops and changes, but retains its original identity. The Church has done the same.
“quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur.”
Don’t believe everything you read.
The history is very clear that the Emperor Constantine founded the Catholic Church as the new Roman Theocracy, that had evolved from the earlier Imperial Roman Pantheon to the single god of solar monotheism, which was easily transliterated to Christian terminology. Immaculate Conception and the Trinity seem to have been introduced in this same period, drawing from the same templates from former religions in the “Holy Land”.
The concept of “kristos” or “Christós” as an indwelling spirit guide goes back to the mists of the earliest societies. The “hanged god” is also part of the overall motif, which actually centers on the “Cross of the Equinox”.
It turns out that Man made God in his image. That this image is a metaphor is not easily grasped by “True Believers” or “Atheists”. The argument between the two belief systems turns on a dialectical gyre. Dogma demanding strict consensus and obedience to blind faith.
Through the dogma of the church “God” becomes a celestial tyrant represented by men who are tyrants on earth.
The “history” is not what you are citing, but your own tendentious interpretation of it. There is no historical evidence that proves that the essentials of the Catholic Church were not set up by Jesus Christ (sacraments, the Eucharist, essential teaching, the structure of authority, etc.). What history shows, if one is actually open to it, is that, guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles and Gospel Writers further elaborated what was originally revealed by Jesus, the God-Man, and this development of what was already contained in the Word Made Flesh continues today in the Magisterium of the Church. Everything else (Constantine, the political order of Christendom, the particular declarations of parts of orthodoxy in response to heresies, the adoption of Roman customs and law structure, etc.) is merely accidental and contingent historically conditioned applications, embodiments, and manifestations of the Church’s essential teachings and practices. For an explanation of this, please read Cardinal Newman’s “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.”
Your problem is that you construe debatable interpretations as facts, and thereby are self-assured of the truth of your argument. This is a recipe for being trapped in one’s thoughts about reality, as opposed to being open to reality itself. Didn’t you learn dialectic and open-mindedness in school? Read Plato.
So it is clear now that Thaddeus Kozinski is more interested in evangelizing for the Catholic Church than the topic of the book he participated in writing.
Throughout this entire discussion he has refused to answer the most simple questions put to him concerning the ground of his faith. Rather than say whether he personally “knows” Jesus, we are treated to doctrinaire dogma and this assertion of “infallibility” for a system of belief rife with internal contradictions.
He councils “open-mindedness” and suggests reading Plato, one of the premier totalitarian thinkers of all time, while defending one of the premier institutions of totalitarian thought, the Catholic Church. It is mind bending hypocrisy, the arrogant passages of Mr Kozinski’s commentary.
I will end my brutal critique of Thaddeus Kozinski and his misguided belief in doctrinaire dogma here. He can have his beliefs – I want nothing further to do with him or them.
Let us rather speak to the pathological warmongering society that both the church and state has generated amongst us; the society that clings to phony ‘tolerance’. An Orwellian society wherein “War is Peace”, “Love is Hate”, “Up is Down”, and “Insanity is Sane”.
If you’re not connected to the true Sacred, the Living God, then you are at the mercy of the satanic sacred, and it’s most pernicious trait is to get you to defend your own slavery and torture, and to lie to yourself and others. The Catholic Church is the only thing that can save you from being mentally and spiritually enslaved to the zeitgeist. Totalitarianism (the Deep State, false flag terrorism, the tyranny of the Supreme Court, the Elite psychopaths and their enablers, the cave puppeteers, and other forces against the Logos) is what results when the social reign of Christ the King is rejected. Plato and Orwell were both against the same thing, the rule of the puppeteers and the tyranny of the shadows.
“Plato and Orwell were both against the same thing, the rule of the puppeteers and the tyranny of the shadows.”~Thaddeus Kozinski
You obviously never read Plato’s ‘REPUBLIC’, or if you did, you certainly did not grasp it.
I won’t address your blather about “Satan”, but will give a link on what I think of this delusion about “devils”:
Plato is counseling against immanentizing the eschaton. Socratic irony runs throughout. It’s not a blueprint for Brave New World or 1984, but the perennial answer to these sort of human hells. It’s about how to reach the transcendent and to escape from enslavement to the idols of one’s age, not about how to substitute politics for God.Your knee-jerk atheism is the product of the close-mindedness liberalism you accept unquestioningly you defend.
“Your knee-jerk atheism is the product of the close-mindedness liberalism you accept unquestioningly you defend.”~Thaddeus Kozinski
But I am not an atheist Thaddeus. I have met God face to face and know Him.
So tell me Thaddeus, would you replace the present “liberal secular” government with your Roman Theocracy? Would you force us to kneel to your Father, Son, & Holy Ghost Story?
You claim to be a “philosopher”, what of the principles of the Inalienable Rights of Individuals?
You speak of the Philosopher Kings of the REPUBLIC as though they are not administering a totalitarian system… what utter tripe! It is this Collectivist bullshit you promote that is Hell on Earth.
The hypocrisy of a dogmatic authoritarian such as yourself claiming that I am “close-minded” , and that I defend “unquestioningly” is rich. Your intolerance is so hidebound and your soul is so imprisoned by doctrine that you have become unhinged from the natural world of the living.
Do not address me again until you answer the questions I have asked of you, I am sick of your pontificating and preaching.
Those questions are:
>Do you know Jesus personally?
>Do you accept the principle of Inalienable Rights of Individuals.
I am glad you believe in God and have a personal connection with Him. As for meeting God face to face, well, I hope to do so in Heaven, as such a meeting here on earth would be a bit much for someone still imperfect and inclined to sin.
Personal freedom is a God-given gift and natural right, of course. Nothing I have said implies otherwise. A Catholic political order would be the one that provides its citizens with the most freedom, true freedom, because it would be rightly-ordered freedom based upon the Good, and it would be the most tolerant of states, for it is not based upon intolerant ideology. It would provide the best conditions for people to discover the Good and to live it integrally. It wouldn’t be a theocracy in your sense of the term. That is what Liberal States are. Relativistic regimes such as those we have now are disguised tyrannies, and cannot be otherwise,for they can’t help but impose false idols on people in the name of Freedom. This is what Huxley and Orwell show, if you read their works carefully. I show this clearly, I think, in my book, The Political Problem of Religious Pluralism: And Why Philosophers Can’t Solve It.
“I am glad you believe in God and have a personal connection with Him..”~Thaddeus Kozinski
I did not say I “believe in God”, I said I know God personally. I am not speaking to ‘Faith’ I am speaking to knowledge. As a “philosopher” you must surely understand the distinction between faith and knowledge.
You say, “A Catholic political order would be the one that provides its citizens with the most freedom, true freedom..”
This is belied by the actual brutal history of the Catholic Church in Europe, who are you trying to kid here Thaddeus?
Your answers are clear enough; you do not know Jesus personally, but await in mortal fear of some “Judgement Day”.
You don’t have the slightest comprehension of the principles of the Inalienable Rights to Liberty, because they certainly were not allowed by the Catholic Church in all of its history on this planet.
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
by Julian Jaynes
I suggest reading this book, there are keys to understanding here.
Metaphor holds the key to grasping what consciousness is.
“For better or worse, French values are definitely not universal. They are just another version of culturally determined practices which, in terms of speech, set the limits of what the powers-that-be find permissible. These limits may be broader than the ones promoted by Islamists but, as we have seen, they are not open-ended.”
False flaggers they may be but vive la France!
Barrett is forever tying Israel into the 9/11 narrative, which is fine to a point, but Barret’s anti-zionistic zeal borders on anti-Semitism IMHO. Yes, there are the dancing Israelis and some other evidences of Israeli involvement in 9/11 but Barret would sex-up this evidence to make Israel the main culprit of 9/11 when almost no mention of Israeli involvement is mentioned by Tarpley, Griffin, Ryan and others whose writings are less biased when it comes to Israel.
That Charlie Hebdo was an Israeli op I don’t know. I have not read the book, but from what I have read so far from other sources, when it comes to who benefits from the Paris false flag op all the western powers, including Israel, stand to gain.
“Barrett is forever tying Israel into the 9/11 narrative, which is fine to a point, but Barret’s anti-zionistic zeal borders on anti-Semitism IMHO.”
I’m curious, how is it that his anti-Zionism “borders on anti-Semitism?” This was a charge that I often used to see the fakes at 911blogger and Truthaction (RIP) forums 5-7 years ago. I always, without fail, found their charges to be baseless. Can you give me an example of something Barrett said that can be truly interpreted as an attack on Jewish people?
I think that many other writers do rightly focus on the US government involvement, but probably because they primarily see 9/11 through the lens of “If it wasn’t who the US govt told us it was, it must have been the US govt itself.”
And, to be sure, it was primarily an inside job on many levels, especially given the evidence for the staged/faked plane crash at the Pentagon. But what many of these authors (DRG etc) didn’t seem to consider is that part of the operation could have been an inside-yet-outsourced job. Barrett and some other authors have done this.
“how is it that his anti-Zionism “borders on anti-Semitism?”
Just a hunch. The way Barrett carries on about Israel and 9/11, not to mention his frequent mentions of his conversion to Islam is red meat for the “Jewish conspiracy” crowd looking for another way to link all Jews into a conspiracy for why their lives are miserable. Similar perhaps to the nazis linking all Jews with Bolshevism. Maybe you can separate anti-Israel-ism from anti-Jew-ism but a lot of the lunkheads can’t. The nuanced distinction which you can make might be hard for shallower thinkers. And I think Barrett knows this. So while Barrett may say he is not anti-Semetic, an unfortunate knock-on effect of his message is that he’s got a number of truthers thinking the Joos dun it.
And are you now linking Griffin, etc. with the “only so far” gatekeeper crowd? Have the Jewish media and bankers gotten to them too?
“Maybe you can separate anti-Israel-ism from anti-Jew-ism but a lot of the lunkheads can’t. The nuanced distinction which you can make might be hard for shallower thinkers. And I think Barrett knows this.”
“And are you now linking Griffin, etc. with the “only so far” gatekeeper crowd? Have the Jewish media and bankers gotten to them too?”
No, I think that Griffin “knows this” along with the rest, just like Barrett does. And they engage in self-censorship. They don’t want either the lunkheads or the pundits in MSM thinking that they are blaming teh Joos.
Griffin does indeed speak of Pakistani and Saudi funding of the “attacks” in his books; but does not mention the Dancing Israelis, the Urban Moving Systems van and the alleged “art students” in his books, to the best of my knowledge.
As for Kevin Ryan… have you read my critical review of his book?
I ordered his book and read it, and found numerous problems with it, mainly on the issues of the hijackers, the Pentagon, and Israel.
On the latter, he offers us this curious whopper:
““The only ones who have benefited in that region are the ruling royal families of countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kuwait, who have long collaborated with the West… because it has temporarily protected them from regional threats like that posed by Saddam Hussein and from other challenges to their positions of power.” ~ Kevin Ryan
I laughed out loud when I read that from Ryan, because I was well aware of the infamous quote by Bibi Natanyahu shortly after 9/11:
“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Ma’ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.” ~ Benjamin Netanyahu
I think if there’s a major 9/11 author who’s either been approached or was a gatekeeper from the get-go, it’s Ryan. He also believes we should “accept as much of the official account as possible, including that the alleged hijackers were on the planes.” He also plays into the perps’ hands by constantly referring to the “terrorist attacks” of 9/11.
“Maybe you can separate anti-Israel-ism from anti-Jew-ism but a lot of the lunkheads can’t.” ~Jimbo
So the subject should be avoided? Because the “lunkheads” won’t grasp the nuances, won’t get the deeper issues?
Shall we avoid discussion of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, because the mainstream has deemed the documents “plagiarism”, “fake”, “Antisemitic”, “Hate Speech”?
Should we whimper in fear and avoid use of the word “Jew” all together? After all, some would say that only the Chosen can speak to the problems of the Jewish People, “the Goy have no place is such conversations”.
Shall we leave the “lunkheads” to their ignorance because there is a chance they might misinterpret something we have to say as “conspiracy theory”? Heaven fucking forbid!!!
The question that comes to my mind here Jimbo, is are YOU secure enough in the fact that the Jewish People are innocent of all charges of “Collective Guilt”? The basic truth is that we are all of us, each of us, unique and individual beings. All classifications break down on deep reflection.
It is clear enough, not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews. There is great doubt that the Zionists who authored the Protocols were Jews.
Remember “Semite” is a language group, not a particular ethnicity, race, etc. Does anyone truly hate a language? Is that their problem? That is what “antisemitism” means technically.
Remember what Orwell teaches us about language. “Antisemitism” is NEWSPEAK Jimbo. The term is nonsensical. That means you can make it mean whatever you want – because it doesn’t really mean anything. Isn’t that mean? Yes, it is a weapon.
Okay, I went a reread your review and kudos to you for spotting the weaknesses in Ryan’s book including his dismissal of Israel’s likely involvement. But since we are debating the biases of Mr. Barrett my antenna went up when in your review you got to writing about Larry Silverman, obviously a Jew. And then I laughed out loud when you backed up your Silverman segment with a quote by none other than Kevin Barrett. What Barrett wrote about Silverman, it was like, I don’t know, some shit from the Protocols of Zion time where, chock full of sneering and code words, he pretty much drew a picture of the stereotypical avaricious Jew greedily rubbing his hands together like Mr. Smithers. Let others read it and tell me if you think Barrett has more in his agenda than getting to the truth of 9/11
A recent article by Kevin Barrett sums up the Silverstein situation well:
*Lewis Eiseinberg, Chair of the New York Port Authority in 2001, engineered a sweetheart deal to give his fellow alleged mobster Larry Silverstein a 99-year lease on the Trade Center – the deal that was consummated just six weeks before 9/11. Eisenberg, Chair of the Republican Party National Finance Committee, was the top Republican money-man behind the stolen-presidential-election coup d’état of 2000, and Silverstein was a leading Republican money-man from New York.
*Silverstein immediately doubled the insurance on the World Trade Center and hard-balled his insurers into changing the policy to “cash payout.” Six weeks later, this would look…prescient.
*Silverstein and certain family members, who ate every morning at Windows to the World Restaurant at the top of the North Tower, suddenly remembered various improbable “appointments” on the morning of September 11th, and didn’t show up for breakfast. Everyone who did eat at Windows to the World that morning was pulverized in the demolition that turned the North Tower to sub-100-micron dust in ten seconds.
*Silverstein quickly collected the 4.5 billion dollar insurance payout on the buildings he had only “owned” for six weeks, then went back to court looking for another 13 billion dollars from other insurers. Larry’s personal investment in the World Trade Center was less than $20 million dollars, while his partners had thrown in just over $100 million…a tiny fraction of the cash payout bonanza reaped by the 9/11 demolitions.
*Bottom line: Silverstein – a radical Zionist and close friend of Benjamin “9/11 is very good” Netanyahu – bought a worthless, condemned property, doubled the insurance, conspired to blow up his own buildings six weeks later, and walked away with billions of dollars in cash, plus the valuable right to rebuild at the World Trade Center site.
And on top of that, the US declared eternal war on Israel’s enemies. Talk about win-win.
How many of your starred (*) points about Silverstein from Barrett’s quotes are wrong?
You make your list as though it is in someway ‘self-evident’ that these assertions are incorrect. However they are in fact all very true.
You make these remarks about the Protocols. Have you ever read them? Or are you simply going on what others have claimed?
The authenticity of the Protocols is contained in their predictive or prophetic capacity.
The only way to successfully predict the future is to engineer it.
A minor correction to offer you – it’s Silverstein, not Silverman.
“…he pretty much drew a picture of the stereotypical avaricious Jew greedily rubbing his hands together like Mr. Smithers.”
As HR notes, was there anything in Barrett’s assertions that was incorrect?
If anything, Silverstein himself harms the entire Jewish people by oh-so-flagrantly living up to that stereotype. The Smithers image is actually quite apt, I can totally see it. But Smithers is not a Jew, from what I know.
Actually, hold on: are you sure you don’t mean Burns?
Burns (hands together, man of extreme wealth)
Finally the real question: Is it really acceptable scholarship that in a several-hundred-page book that attempts to spotlight the guilty parties of 9/11, that Larry Silverstein doesn’t earn a spot at all on the list of Kevin Ryan’s list of “[other] nineteen?”
“And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”~Silverstein
“the Goy have no place is such conversations”.
It’s goyim, the plural of goy, with no capital G (I think).
“Remember “Semite” is a language group, not a particular ethnicity, race, etc. Does anyone truly hate a language? Is that their problem? That is what “antisemitism” means technically.”
And I don’t know how this is any kind of argument though it comes up time and time again. Whatever its etymology anti-Semitism is just a word and it currently means having a hatred for the Jews. Yes, they say Arabs are semitic too and you say it is based on a language group. Fine, But for a catch-all utterance for anti-Jewish bigotry I was taught that anti-Semitism is the word.
“But for a catch-all utterance for anti-Jewish bigotry I was taught that anti-Semitism is the word.”~Jimbo
Yea, you were “taught” a lot of things, obviously.
“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Ma’ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.” ~ Benjamin Netanyahu
Without more substance I interpret this remark similarly to Kurt Vonnegut saying how there was only one person who derived any benefit from the bombing of Dresden and that was he who got a book written about it.
Are you Jewish Jimbo?
Nominally but yeah. To be honest it pains me to see Israel implicated in 9/11 but I can handle the truth. It makes sense to investigate Israel’s part in the plot and so far there is some evidence but not a lot. Objectively the dancing Israelis story is weak tea.
But Barrett is in another league. He is a real bastard as far as I am concerned.
And being honest I can see how one could think the Jews did it. There’s a shitload of us in it, from Israel to PNAC and beyond.
But then there is me. I know 9/11 was an inside job. 7/7 too. Probably even Boston and Sandy Hook.
And now that you know I am a Jew what will you make of it?
“It makes sense to investigate Israel’s part in the plot and so far there is some evidence but not a lot”
So, you’ve never heard of Christopher Bollyn?
The evidence that 911 was and still is an Israeli operation is far beyond overwhelming.
The destruction of the evidence:
“The evidence that 911 was and still is an Israeli operation is far beyond overwhelming.” ~sockpuppet2012
I would rephrase this in this way:
The evidence that Israel is part of the 9/11 operation is overwhelming. I reject the concept that 9/11 was exclusively an Israeli operation.
I reject the unhistorical frame that Zionism is a creation of Israel, when it is quite apparent that Israel is a creation of Zionism. Let us not turn everything inside-out and backwards here.
hybridrogue 1 said:
“The evidence that Israel is part of the 9/11 operation is overwhelming. I reject the concept that 9/11 was exclusively an Israeli operation”
Of course there were Gentile idiots used here and there, but Christopher Bollyn’s work is irrefutable.
And I said “Israeli” so I wouldn’t have to use the “J” word.
“I reject the unhistorical frame that Zionism is a creation of Israel, when it is quite apparent that Israel is a creation of Zionism”
Me too…..I mean, what kind of an idiot would think that Zionism was created after 1948?
Why did you bring that up?
“Let us not turn everything inside-out and backwards here”
What am I turning “inside-out and backwards”?…..please explain.
“And I said “Israeli” so I wouldn’t have to use the “J” word.”~sockpuppet2012
Well don’t be shy sockpuppet; if you mean the Jews then lets be open about it!
Zionism has nothing to do with religion, ethnicity nor race. It is based on the mindset and meme of “Might is Right”. There are Christian Zionists, Jewish Zionists, Muslim Zionists, Chinese Zionists, etc etc etc.
Zionism is simply another form of Realpolitik, and can be traced far back into history as the mindset of all tyrants, before and after the book THE PRINCE.
9/11 was primarily a false flag operation conducted by the global military industrial complex. All of the major national intelligence agencies had some form of foreknowledge – if not some part to play.
I warn against the promotion of collective guilt being placed upon “the Jews”. The average Jew has no more inside knowledge of the machinations of their leadership than the clueless Amerikan TVZombies.
hybridrogue 1 said:
“Well don’t be shy sockpuppet; if you mean the Jews then lets be open about it!”
I didn’t say or mean “the” Jews, hybridrogue; read Bollyn’s work:
Bollyn doesn’t say “the Jews” either.
“Zionism has nothing to do with religion, ethnicity nor race”
Nor does it have anything to do with my comment; that’s precisely why I asked you in my last comment:
“Why did you bring that up?”
So, why did you bring it up again, instead of telling why you brought it up the first time?
hybridrogue 1 said:
“I warn against the promotion of collective guilt being placed upon “the Jews””
Don’t put words in my mouth.
Don’t twist my simple, straightforward comments out of joint.
And fuck you and your warnings!
Don’t try to sidestep what you said Sockpuppet, you said and I again quote:
“And I said “Israeli” so I wouldn’t have to use the “J” word.”
I’m not twisting anything Sockpuppet, you are trying to wiggle out of what you said directly here. So what do you want us to think you meant by “J-word”? Jemima?
Fuck you and your squirming! grin
The “J” word is “Jewish”…..not “the Jews”; are you seriously unable to see the difference?
When I said”
“The evidence that 911 was and still is an Israeli operation is far beyond overwhelming”
I said “Israeli” to keep from saying:
“The evidence that 911 was and still is a Jewish operation is far beyond overwhelming”
Of course I don’t mean every Jew on the planet…..what a maroon!
hybridrogue 1 said:
“The average Jew has no more inside knowledge of the machinations of their leadership than the clueless Amerikan TVZombies”
I am 100% with you on that.
I learned about a year after my rude “awakening” nine years ago that the average Jews are the most brainwashed and lied to people in the world; they are being used by their Psychopathic, warmongering leaders to use the “anti-Semite” card.
Their “leaders” don’t give a rat’s ass what happens to them.
“The “J” word is “Jewish”…..not “the Jews”; are you seriously unable to see the difference?”
Yes, I see you are squirming with semantics now…Lol
Keep your foot out of your mouth by thinking about what is shown in your subtext.
Kevin Barrett is anything but a bastard. That’s slander. Good men are always ridiculed and disparaged.
“And now that you know I am a Jew what will you make of it?”~Jimbo
What I make of it is what led me to ask you the question; that is your obvious bias.
This might or might not enlighten you Jimbo,
“In the beginnings of the structure of society, they were subjected to brutal and blind force; after words – to Law, which is the same force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature right lies in force.”~Protocol I
The “Might is Right” meme, boldly put. An aspect of ‘Cultural Darwinism’, as promoted by the British Fabians who were drawn from the Aristocracy, of which there were very few open Jews.
Ladies, ladies, your all wrong. It isn’t the Jews, or Zionism or any of that crap. The real conspiracy is capitalism. The capitalists are the ones who spew this fairy dust, this shower of one dollar bills that have us running around looking for an “other” to blame. The Protocols is a fraud and it is good, very good. And who might sponsor such a project? A very rich person or group of persons. You know who did 9/11 and Charlie Hebdo? Capitalists. And the last I looked Israel is a capitalist country, like the US and the UK. The super rich are behind all wars, And yeah, there are a lot of Jews on the 9/11 deck of cards as well as Arabs, gentiles and maybe even a Sufi mystic. So chill. Don’t be distracted. And this goes for Barrett, too. Follow the money. (No, not those piddly dollar bills. The really big money.)
The really big money = Political Power. Capitalism is the effect, not the cause. Think about the Hegelian Dialectic: Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis.
I am attempting to deconstruct the myths around the Protocols.
Yes, and there are many, pro and con.
Many would rather dismiss them as a fraud. But their relevance is what is leading to the fruition of the New World Order. The plan, the methods, the agenda is put forth therein blatantly.
And the clock is ticking…
Anyone remember the LIHOP gatekeeping “Truthmove” forum? “Truthmover” Julian Ware left this comment there a few weeks ago; he apparently deleted it but a screen shot exists:
“He and Fetzer are CIA. I hope they die soon.”
Classy guy you are, Julian. And a wee bit creepy.
Well Mr Syed, I wouldn’t put Barrett in the CIA camp, but I certainly have to wonder about his continuing activities with Fetzer, who is certainly some sort of mole. I simply haven’t payed that much attention to Barrett. But his relationship with Dr. F. causes pause in my estimate.
I see Fetzer as one of the most obvious disinformants on the Internet.
I agree with you on all of those counts. Barrett does perpetuate alliances with shady characters, probably because he believes in the publicity-at-any-cost approach. His continued association with Duff and VT is definitely disconcerting.
But I wouldn’t wish death on any of them.
Also, as you can tell from the further screen shots below, that forum and its admin were obviously tasked with disparaging ANY effective 9/11 activists. They are the yester-decade version of the trolls and shills like Mike Collins who currently infest the FB 9/11 TM group.
“But I wouldn’t wish death on any of them.”~Adam Syed
Of course, I wouldn’t either. But pointing out the error of their ways is beneficial, and worthwhile.
. . . .
“There are many electrical and hydraulic features of large building that could explode. Also, trapped fires can cause explosions.”
“I wasn’t surprised that virtually the entire American Institute of Architects rejected the appeal from AE9/11 “truth.” Reassuring, actually.”~Mark
That is pretty damned stupid! Anyone who has looked at the issues carefully can see that is a load of bullshit.
Here is that same character (and friend “mark”) on the same site crapping all over CD and AE911Truth.
“There are many electrical and hydraulic features of large building that could explode. Also, trapped fires can cause explosions.”
“I wasn’t surprised that virtually the entire American Institute of Architects rejected the appeal from AE9/11 “truth.” Reassuring, actually.”
“So count me out of the next 5 hour Richard Gage lecture.”
“…he knows full well that I worked hard to undermine CIT.”
“Marquis was an amateur compared to Ranke, who had his schtick down at a level that clearly indicated training. CIT was absolutely an intel operation. I have no doubt at all.”
“Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one’s party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier of the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, SO-CALLED LIBERALISM, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears; the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance, and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism.”~Protocol I, point 5
. . . .
This is a falsehood drawn from the error of “Might is Right”. The Truth is that Political freedom is a fact based on eternal Universal Principles. The “authority” of the state is a phantom, a lie of mortal men. It is the State that is an idea but not a fact.
As far as written law & statute they are only legitimate which align with the principles of Unalienable Liberty, and the Individual Rights thereof. Knowing the Rights of Liberty are the individual’s Responsibility. One must acknowledge that they are universal amongst all of humankind. It is irresponsible to infringe upon another’s rights.
And I do hold these Truths to be Self-Evident.
Pardon, the critique above is of Protocol I point 6
The Kozinski paragraph provides a healthy perspective on the forest the alleged Charlie-Hebdo false flag is but a tree of. I’ll add that the most ironic silence comes from the watchdog not mentioned, namely the Muslim community. Muslim practitioners, Muslim fundamentalists, Muslim schools, Muslim religious denominations, Muslim mass media, Muslim governments ostensibly are victims of the false flag. Yet they the opinions Muslim rulers, leaders and scholars offer assume the official myth.
From a still more distant perspective, this appears to be a pattern: Muslim fanatics have been accused of numerous acts of terror since–and even before–9/11, many of which are probably false flags, but Muslim opinion-makers, with very few and marginal exceptions like Barrett, have promoted the self-defeating “try to take islamophobia in stride and be humble whenever you state that most Muslim fanatics would never terrorize” mantra.
Future historians will have a field day studying the process that persuaded Islamic rulers and leaders to be so evil against their gullible followers. On the plus side, if enough Muslims learn to mistrust Muslim leaders who are incapable of drawing any intelligent conclusions from Building 7’s video record, they may launch humanity’s transition out of this silly war system and into an era of unprecedented harmony, joy and prosperity, But this is another story.
Comments on The Society of the Spectacle (1)
By Guy Debord
“In 1967, in a book entitled The Society of the Spectacle, I showed what the modern spectacle was already in essence: the autocratic reign of the market economy which had acceded to an irresponsible sovereignty, and the totality of new techniques of government which accompanied this reign. The disturbances of 1968, which in several countries lasted into the following years, having nowhere overthrown the existing organization of the society from which it springs apparently spontaneously, the spectacle has thus continued to gather strength, that is, to spread to the furthest limits on all sides, while increasing its density in the center. It has even learnt new defensive techniques, as powers under attack always do. When I began the critique of spectacular society, what was particularly noticed — given the period — was the revolutionary content that could be discovered in that critique; and it was naturally felt to be its most troublesome element. As to the spectacle itself, I was sometimes accused of having invented it out of thin air, and was always accused of indulging myself to excess in my evaluation of its depth and unity, and its real workings. I must admit that others who later published new books on the same subject demonstrated that it was quite possible to say less. All they had to do was to replace the totality and its movement by a single static detail on the surface of the phenomenon, with each author demonstrating his originality by choosing a different and all the less disturbing one. No one wanted to taint the “However critical the situation and circumstances in which you find yourself, despair of nothing; it is on the occasions in which everything is to be feared that it is necessary to fear nothing; it is when one is surrounded by all the dangers that it is not necessary to dread any; it is when one is without resources that it is necessary to count on all of them; it is when one is surprised that it is necessary to surprise the enemy himself.” Sun Tzu, The Art of War.1 1. Sun Tzu: Guy Debord’s epigraph is taken from the first European translation of The Art of War, by the Jesuit JJ.L. Amiot (1782). The best available English translation, by Samuel B. Griffith (Oxford 1963), does not include this passage, so I have had to translate from the French. scientific modesty of his personal interpretation by interposing reckless historical judgments. Nonetheless, the society of the spectacle has continued to advance. It moves quickly for in 1967 it had barely forty years behind it, though it had used them to the full. And by its own development, which no one took the trouble to investigate, it has since shown with some astonishing achievements that it was effectively just what I said it was. Proving this point has more than academic value, because it is undoubtedly indispensable to have understood the spectacle’s unity and articulation as an active force in order to examine the directions in which this force has since been able to travel.
That modern society is a society of the spectacle now goes without saying.
Indeed people will soon only be conspicuous by their reticence. One loses
count of all the books describing a phenomenon which now marks all the
industrialized nations yet equally spares none of the countries which has
still to catch up. What is so droll, however, is that all the books which
do analyze this phenomenon, usually to deplore it, cannot but join the
spectacle if they’re to get attention.
It is true that this spectacular critique of the spectacle, which is not only late
but, even worse, seeks ‘attention’ on the same level, inevitably sticks to vain
generalities or hypocritical regrets; just as futile as the clowns who parade
their well-mannered disillusion in newspapers.
The empty debate on the spectacle — that is, on the activities of the world’s
owners — is thus organized by the spectacle itself: everything is said about
the extensive means at its disposal, to ensure that nothing is said about
their extensive deployment. Rather than talk of the spectacle, people often
prefer to use the term ‘media.’ And by this they mean to describe a mere
instrument, a kind of public service which with impartial ‘professionalism’
would facilitate the new wealth of mass communication through mass
media a form of communication which has at last attained a unilateral purity,
whereby decisions already taken are presented for passive admiration. For
what is communicated are orders; and with perfect harmony, those who
give them are also those who tell us what they think of them.
Spectacular power, which is so fundamentally unitary, so concentrated by
the very weight of things, and entirely despotic in spirit, frequently rails at
the appearance in its realm of a spectacular politics, a spectacular justice,
a spectacular medicine and all the other similarly surprising examples of
‘media excess.’ Thus the spectacle would be merely the excesses of the media,
whose nature, unquestionably good since it facilitates communication, is
sometimes driven to extremes.
The spectacle has
spread itself to the point where it now permeates all reality. It was easy
to predict in theory what has been quickly and universally demonstrated
by practical experience of economic reason’s relentless accomplishments:
that the globalisation of the false was also the falsification of the globe.”~Guy Debord
wow Willy, kinda spectacularly unspectacular spectacle. i did like, GuyD’s, ” just as futile as the clowns who parade their well mannered disillusion in newspapers”
“kinda spectacularly unspectacular spectacle.”~camusrebel
Well Camus, I know you have been reading my stuff from the time of COTO. I have made a similar case, or framed the situation as a metaphor, ‘Burlesque’, a close analogy of GuyD’s “spectical”… perhaps the cheesy aspect of the term burlesque makes it more apropos (?).
Or: a grand, spectacular burlesque.
The Public Relations Regime is simply ‘Theater of the Absurd’ …
Not worth the ticket price — it’s a ripoff.
I knew it would be a mistake to look but I did. Here is a snippet from an interview with Barrett and James Tracey.
– It’s not really Judaism anymore. It’s a new secular ideology that worships the Holocaust that has founded the state of Israel, and I believe that ideology is really just a tool of the international banksters. So these people are dupes, really They’re not the ultimate bad guys. But those people are at war with Islam. They’re stealing Islamic holy land. They’re basically at war with more than 1.5 billion Muslims. In order to keep that project going and succeed at it, the only way they can do it is to hijack the West and send the West to war against their enemies–that is, against the religion and people of Islam. That’s really the bottom line of what’s going on. The blasphemy against Christianity, a lot of it is coming from the same people–these sort of post-Jewish Holocaustians and extreme secularists who really hate Christianity even more than they hate Islam. –
To encapsulate so much nefariousness in one paragraph is outrageous. Yes, there was the Holocaust and there is Israel, but there are “international bankers” and a few dupes. On the other side there is this evil cabal and on the other (Is that harps I hear?) Islam and what is now THEIR holy land. And so according to Barret it is now the Jews and their banks and their country who are at war with 1.5 billion of these angelic folk. (Watch out Indonesia.) And taking an imaginary shoe off one imaginary foot and putting it on another, these Jews are now also now the hijackers. Not to mention Christianity blasphemers. Speculation is one thing but this … this is slander.
“an interview with Barrett and James Tracey.”~Jimbo
It is always good form to post the link when making a quote.
Wrote my comments in a rage, in a pinch for time and sloppily. My point was, if you didn’t get it, is that, as you can read, Barrett is an old school anti-Semite and should not be respected as a bringer or honest broker for truth.
“Barrett is an old school anti-Semite”~Jimbo
Well Jimbo, I have already commented on the Newspeak term “anti-Semite”, which is an abuse of language.
I also have problems with Barrett as a ‘true believer’ with his Islamic bullshit. The same critique that I have made as per Catholicism applies to the Islamists, the Christians, the Jews, everybody who belongs to one of these large Identity Cults. That includes Statism, and the jingoberry crap that entails. Holyroller nonsense just doesn’t fly with me.
So yea I listened to this radio show, which is all a bunch of religious crap.
“Blasphemy”? “Dogma”? I don’t agree with things framed from this perspective.
But Barrett does frame, Zionism quite well.
Anyway, thanks for the link to the info you were speaking to.
“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood let alone believed by the masses.” – Plato
Walter Lippmann pointed this out as good news for those projecting the shadows.
I wonder is it hate speech to say that AIPAC has way too much control over American politics? Is it hateful to say that Goldman Sachs is at the center of the largest financial thievery in the history of man? Am I a racist if I say that the media is totally and flagrantly biased in favor of Israel and against Palestine? Does saying these things mean I am racist against Jews? I suppose that is for others to decide. Regardless of their labels for me for saying these things they are never the less true. Even some of my Jewish friends say so.
Of course not but if you take that one giant and ludicrous step and imply that by their being staffed by a fairly large number of Jewish individuals (except for AIPAC which is probably led by Jews) then that is racist and thus not true. Just by you saying, or implying that GS is “Jewish” is racist. Can you see that? There are plenty of goyim (dupes?) who work for GS. And as for the “media,” this, our treasured Truth and Shadows is the media too. Are you a bigot if you talk shit about the Vatican or mention “Muslim” terrorists or make a joke about red necks? C’mon, Barrett is low key and skillful but he is needling our basest minds about our preconceptions, what we already “know” about the Jews. Very Goebbelsian.
And if you roll your eyes when critics say the 9/11 Truth Movement is anti-Semitic then dollars to donuts it is Barrett who is smearing our crusade. Barrett is the one who ties 9/11 to Israel and Israel to the Jews (connect the dots) more than any other 9/11/conspiracy spokesperson.
I’ll add that as a convert to Islam I’d bet that not too deeply down in Barrett’s gut he is wants to curry favor with Muslims who have more reason to dislike/distrust Jews than average white westerners. Barrett IS a regular on PRESS TV. Muslims are blamed for 9/11, right? Muslims don’t appreciate that. Average Joe Muslim knows very well he had nothing to do with 9/11 and does’t like being tarred with the terrorist brush. Who is defending Muslim honor? Kevin Barrett to the rescue. It wan’t you Joe Muslim, it was Israel and the Jews, says Barrett. See what a good Muslim convert I am!
Look, if you have a case for Israel, or even a cabal of Jews being involved with 9/11, fine, lay out your case, but leave your prejudices out of it. The facts are what count in our quest, not suspicions. Barrett mixes those facts with suspicion and that is fucked up.
I guess the question for you Jimbo is; can you yourself distinguish between Judaism and Zionism?
Is it you don’t have to be Jewish to be a Zionist but it helps?
Can you understand the ideals of Zionism? Now, of course, it’s all in a horrible mess but as I understand it Zionism as an ideal was a good thing, a communal way for a persecuted group of people to find refuge. protection and society. Getting along with the Arabs was also in the plan. Sadly those ideals have been gobbled up by capitalism, politics, human nature and US foreign policy. The Israel of 2015 is not the Palestine/Israel of the early to mid 20th century. But whatever Israel does, even bomb Gaza, it is no reason to hate on the Jews – – or true Zionists. And gee, I never thought about it but I guess I am a Zionist. I lived on a kibbutz at the foot of the Golan Heights for two years back in the 70s and it was tough work but it was a good life. I’d wish that sort of thing for everyone. It was truly ideal. There was no hate. I worked in the alfalfa fields and the apple orchard, had a pretty Dutch girlfriend, a small room, three meals a day with free beer and wine on Friday nights. Free cigs. THAT is how shit should be. That was Zionism as I experienced it.
“And gee, I never thought about it but I guess I am a Zionist.”~Jimbo
Yea looks like it bucko, and you are really fucked up in the head. You bought a load of shit propaganda and call it “history”…”idealism”. At the core of it you are a collectivist who doesn’t know the difference between idealism and principles.
Wow, Jimbo. I took you for a hot headed 28 year old, and you turn out to be in your 50s…
It explains a lot… Because you seem to have spent the most curious years of your life not asking any real questions, and not questioning anything you have been fed.
While you were satisfying your hormones behind an old and destroyed tank left over from the Six Day War, you did not notice that your brain was being washed and you were being indoctrinated to become a foot soldier for Zionism, while you were providing, very enthusiastically, your free labor to build a nation where there was none. The harsh truth is, the kibbutz was very smartly designed as zionist farms to take Israel to the 21st century, recognizing the fact that the majority of Jews were secular jews. Whether or not farming generations of Israel proponents was the Jews’ only chance to survive in a hostile world is a totally separate topic. But, unless you see things through clear lenses, and not the hexagram shaped glasses you were given when you were young, it is quite difficult to see the real shape of things accurately.
There is no real zionist and fake zionist, as you suggest in another post. There is only true zionism that is practiced at the top, and the fake zionism that was taught, drilled and sold to kids like you from all over the world. But, don’t take it personally. This is a historically well established system that is practiced by every single power structure. From the Romans, to Jews, Christians, Americans, Nazis, Mullahs, you name it… The truth is at the top held by few, and the masses are fed simplistic lies. It is not for artistic purposes that the all seeing eye is separate from the rest of the pyramid.
Whatever else you may be, you seem like a sincere person, and I appreciate that. And I do not wish to come off as insulting. But there is really a very fine line between a useful idiot and a useless idiot.
“The useful idiots who are also useless idiots”
That covers the full spectrum of the Jimbo clown on T&S. An obvious wanker he or she.
One of the reasons I never had any “faith” in the “9/11 Truth Movement”. Just like the general population, the vast majority of them are ignorant & naive dolts playing in the sandbox. Most have their rinkydink personal agendas to serve. The statists and the religionists come in the same costumes. And have the same types of lucky charms on chains around their necks or pinned to their breasts.
Lilaleo may give these Identity Cultists the benefit of the doubt, but I am as usual brutally frank in my assessments here and and elsewhere.
anti–Semitism – noun : hatred of Jewish people
Zionism – : political support for the creation and development of a Jewish homeland in Israel
Deekshonarees? We don’t need no steenkin deekshonarees.
One of my favorite movies is The Man With X-Ray Eyes. In the end Ray Milland took off his protective glasses and stared into the sky. His vision bored so deeply into the universe he could actually see God or something else so profound he was impelled to pluck out his own eyes.
anti–Semitic or more correctly anti — “semitic” – adj. : any person, group or idea that “Jews” don’t like.
Zionism – : political support for the genocide of Palestinians and creation and development of a Jewish homeland in occupied Palestine.
Sockpuppet I have to say I agree with your definitions.
Thank you, ruffadam!
“His vision bored so deeply into the universe he could actually see God or something else so profound he was impelled to pluck out his own eyes.”~Jimbo
So Ray was the role model that led you to (metaphorically) pluck out your own eyes. That explains quite a bit of what is going down here…
Zionism: political support for the creation and development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
I consider Goldman Sachs to be run by psychopathic predators of the very worst kind. The ones at the top of GS happen to be Jewish but as far as I am concerned that is incidental. GS is a destroyer of humanity but I do not think the average Jewish person has much to do with it. Just like the average American has very little to do with our governments war mongering and genocidal adventures all over the world.
So instead of calling GS “Jewish” owned as you mis-characterized my statement Jimbo I would say GS is sociopathic predator owned. Those predators happen to call themselves Jewish but again that is incidental. I would also say our media is owned by sociopathic predators who also happen to identify as Jewish. AIPAC is a committee of sociopathic predators and I need not point out that they label themselves as Jewish.
If it were up to me I would immediately cease all aid to the sociopathic predators who currently control the government of Israel and instead give the money to the Palestinians in the form of humanitarian aid. So just like Americans have to oust the sociopathic predators from our captive government so too do Jews have to band together and get the psychopaths out of power in their country and out of power in their institutions. Until we do that every American bears at least some responsibility for what these monsters do in our name. All Israeli’s likewise bear at least some responsibility for the genocide of the Palestinians and their horrendous treatment at the hands of the Israeli government.
Now as to anyone who supports the sociopathic monsters at GS or in Israel or in America I think you are absolute filth and a blight on humanity. So in short I have no issues at all with the average Jewish person, BUT if they support their monstrous leaders in Israel and support their genocidal attacks on Palestinians I am repulsed by them and consider them to be my mortal enemies. I hope that clarifies my position for what it is worth Jimbo?
I favor a dispassionate approach and contend that no matter what opinions and prejudices you or I may have, especially re Israel vs Palestine, by mixing and, via this and other blogs, amplifying our feelings about these matters we hamper the search and wider acceptance for 9/11 truth and related conspiracies. I will acknowledge that there are many influential Jews and other pro-Israel (Zionist, if you must) supporters in the mainstream media and other positions of influence and if you, like I, ever want to see 9/11 truth accepted in those larger, louder and more influential areas then we need to eschew characters like Barrett who do our quest no favor by being so blatantly pro-Palestinian and grafting those opinions onto his 9/11 messages.
Eyeless and bible black art thou Jimbo
Critique of questionable passage in otherwise excellent book review:
Zwicker and MacQueen write (their comments in bold):
Pro-humanist lefties that we are, we’re impatient with the heterosexist comments scattered through the volume (!?) as well as with the claim, expressed by Barrett and one or two of the contributors, that secularism is a blight. Straw man! I argue that mandatory universal secularism is a blight, not secularism per se – that would be a different argument.
“Today, all of the (sic) features of pre-1960s American society would be decried by the radical secularists who have seized power in the West as symptoms of massive and systematic discrimination in favor of religious believers against non-believers.” I have been misquoted. I listed several specific features of pre-1960s American society and wrote “Today, all of THESE features…” The authors have removed “these” and substituted “the,” thereby altering my quoted words and making my argument appear ridiculous and my writing appear unfocused. But my larger point – that these features would be decried – stands unrefuted.
We think it most dubious that pre-1960s American society is a worthy benchmark. Straw man! I do not say anything about any “benchmark” – though of course it is my personal benchmark in a sense, since it is the world I was born into. Citing the negative social indicators that have risen with secularization, my point is that today’s ultra-secular Western world is ephemeral, bizarre by comparison with all other cultures known to history and anthropology, and exhibiting symptoms of social breakdown. Zwicker and MacQueen have not attempted to refute this. And Barrett, uncharacteristically, has not made his claim well. More importantly, we don’t agree at all that “radical secularists” have seized power in the West…
* * *
I am puzzled by the mention of “heterosexist comments scattered throughout the volume.” Scattered where? Of the twenty-one contributors and twenty-six essays (including the introduction and afterword) how many, precisely, feature “heterosexist comments” ? Saying that a book of twenty-six essays features “heterosexist” or “racist” or “anti-Semitic” comments “scattered throughout the volume” suggests that such comments must be found in at least, say, eighteen or twenty of the essays, making the book a damnable example of bigotry. Such is not the case with this book. I object to the inaccurate use of this empty slur.
Naturally, any book featuring eight Muslims and one Catholic will feature nine “heterosexists” since the scriptural prohibition of homosexual acts is undeniable in these religions. But I don’t recall most of this book’s contributors even bringing up the issue.
The authors write that I have “not made my claim well” (that “secularism is a blight”) because my only argument is that “pre-1960s American society is a worthy benchmark.” But they are misconstruing my argument. The passage in question (p.31-34) opens with a brief personal anecdote about the radical social changes away from religion-based morality that have taken place in my lifetime, showing the ephemerality of today’s Western norms, and moves on to argue that the claim that “blasphemers must be protected by international human rights law” implies forced universal secularization that denies the right of communities to establish religion-based laws and norms, as they have virtually everywhere until very, very recently. Such a world would enforce Orwellian “totalitarian tolerance” in an extremely intolerant way, and is therefore undesirable.
How is that not well-argued? Disagreeing with my argument because you hold a different ideological position does not mean I have argued poorly; more likely, changing my quoted words and insulting my argument, without offering evidence, suggests I have argued too well.
Perhaps we could clarify this disagreement in a radio interview?
“…implies forced universal secularization that denies the right of communities to establish religion-based laws and norms, as they have virtually everywhere until very, very recently.” ~Barrett
Communities do not have “rights” but for the combined rights of every individual in a community. The Unalienable Rights of Individual Liberty are not negotiable. Any “authority” be it secular or religious is barred by these self evident Truths from impinging on certain Unalienable Rights.
Your “very, very recently,” Mr Barrett is the Declaration of Independence. Not the 1950’s nor any other date in your lifetime. These rights are not granted by the Declaration, they are simply recognized as universal truths.
Yes you have clarified and you have “argued too well”; and I reject that argument, just as I reject all arguments from authority, be they religious or secular. You may as well make the argument of Amitai Etzioni and his flaccid “Communitarianism”, for the results are the same.
You suggest; “Perhaps we could clarify this disagreement in a radio interview?”
Personally I think you have clarified it quite adequately with your brief commentary here. But I will leave it to others to make their own remarks as per you suggestion.
Liberty is not an Invention of revolution – Liberty is the Discovery of enlightened Reason.
Barrie Zwicker and Graeme MacQueen respond:
Regarding Kevin Barrett’s criticism of our review of his book, it’s a good starting point that he finds the review excellent other than the “questionable passage” to which he draws our attention. We found his book excellent as well. So it might be said we have “a difference in the family.”
First, about the alleged misquotation, Barrett writes:
“I have been misquoted. I listed several specific features of pre-1960s American society and wrote ‘Today, all of THESE features…’ The authors have removed ‘these’ and substituted the,’ thereby altering my quoted words and making my argument appear ridiculous and my writing appear unfocused.”
In fact he misquotes himself here. What’s written in the book is:
Today, all of the above features of pre-1960s American society would be decried by the radical secularists who have seized power in the West as symptoms of massive and systematic discrimination in favor of religious believers against non-believers.
In the next-to-last version of our review “above” was replaced with ellipses (…) to indicate a word or words were deleted. But in the final version “the” became the operative word. We wouldn’t do that again. Nevertheless we do not think that either ellipses or “the” amount to serious misquotation. Here’s why.
In his response, Barrett states: “But my larger point – that these features would be decried – stands unrefuted.”
These features are not ones we would want to die defending. Here they are, the features of pre-1960’s American morality that Barrett defends (by complaining that they now are decried), included in this verbatim quote:
When I was born a little over 50 years ago, few Americans doubted that religion deserved special protection, and that religious beliefs about the sanctity of life and property were a major source, if not the major source, of both legislation and social convention. Religiously-based legislation of sexual morality and decency, the prohibition of blasphemy, and tax breaks for churches were taken for granted; divorce and childbirth out of wedlock were stigmatized and very rare, with the result that violent crime, suicide, drug abuse, and child poverty rates were very low; abortion was everywhere illegal and almost universally despised; and drugs and alcohol were regulated in accord with religious belief (for example, by prohibitions of the sale of alcohol on Sunday, the Christian holy day).Today, all of the above features…
We simply decided not to wade into this morass, and would defend “the” as not a great disservice to his argument.
Barrett argues in his criticism of this part of our review “that mandatory universal secularism is a blight, not secularism per se — that would be a different argument.”
We don’t see how secularism in the West today can be argued to be “mandatory and universal.” There are hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics, Muslims, Protestants and a raft of other “believers.” A vast dialogue is ongoing. A secular state does not ban religions. It holds that no religion should be in a position to impose its beliefs or practices on everyone else by law, force, stigmatization or other forms of subjugation.
Barrett continues “…my point is that today’s ultra-secular Western world is ephemeral, bizarre by comparison with all other cultures known to history and anthropology, and exhibiting symptoms of social breakdown.”
Everything’s ephemeral eventually so this would not be a distinguishing characteristic of “the Western world.” We agree the so-called “West” is breaking down socially and in many other fundamental ways.
But we do not think that the degree of secularism that has been achieved in “the West” is a crucial factor in the injustices, distortions and huge lies and crimes it perpetrates. While we agree that most of the people who have seized power in the West recently are secularists, in the sense that they have contempt for religion and religious people, we think their secularism is of secondary importance. More important, we think, are the economic and political systems these people are committed to, as well as the moral evil, individual and systemic, in which they are enmeshed.
On heterosexism, we said, “we’re impatient with the heterosexist comments scattered through the volume.” Although we don’t know why Kevin thinks our comment implies there must be heterosexist comments in 18 or 20 essays, we agree that we overstated the case and would be happy to tone down our comment to the following: “we are impatient with three comments in the volume that we regard as heterosexist.” The truth is that even if we agreed with these comments, which we definitely do not, we do not think they create a welcoming atmosphere for readers curious about the Charlie Hebdo affair. We also take issue with Kevin’s explanatory comment: “Naturally, any book featuring eight Muslims and one Catholic will feature nine ‘heterosexists’ since the scriptural prohibition of homosexual acts is undeniable in these religions.” By “these religions” Kevin presumably means Islam and Christianity. But we know both Muslims and Christians (including Catholics) who are not heterosexist.
A moment of self-disclosure here: even though neither of us is Christian now, both of us (Barrie and Graeme) are sons of Protestant ministers and were raised in very religious Christian homes. Although Protestantism is known for the important role it gives to the bible, neither of our families accepted literally all prohibitions and commands in the bible.
A discussion of the meaning of scripture and of the nature of scriptural interpretation seems called for—but perhaps not here!
Despite our disagreements, we don’t think Kevin wants to get rid of secularism or secularists any more than we want to get rid of religion and religious people. So hopefully we can meet and carry out dialogue in a space where we all value diversity and moral goodness.
Radio space is good!
Well, now that we have been served the “verbatim quote” of Kevin Barrett’s passage by Barrie Zwicker and Graeme MacQueen, I can say that I a remain appalled, and even more so at Mr Barrett’s blatantly intolerant frame of thinking.
I won’t deconstruct the entire passage here at this time. But may make some further commentary if this discussion continues further on this thread.
I am sure I will make such a deconstruction on my own blog however, and will be linking to that here when I have composed that.
RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE, a work in progress:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”~Thomas Jefferson (1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists)
“The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another … in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’ … That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”
~Justice Hugo Black – Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
I am trying to put Mr. Barrett’s comments, ideas and opinion in context. In that sense, if I may ask you, Mr Barrett:
What was it that compelled you to convert to Islam? At what age? What was your previous religion?
Well… Hmm.. I guess you were getting a bit too personal for Mr Barrett’s comfort there Lilaleo.
It sorta stopped this thread dead in it’s tracks to ask about Islam and he.
? ? ? ?
I doubt that Kevin is avoiding the question. He has just left on a book tour that will take him to the Western U.S. and Canada. I imagine he’s pretty busy.
Thanks for that info Craig.
On another matter, you left a link on the Judy Wood thread, but to Faq #2 , to make sure people can get there, this is the URL to Faq #3 – which is the one your meant to link to:
9/11, 7/7 and Charlie Hebdo did not happen in a vacuum. It is a large plan and agenda, spanning centuries…
Anyone who actually thinks the establishment of Israel as a thorn in the Middle East isn’t an aspect to this epic is not putting the puzzle pieces together. Time to wake the fuck up children.
Final Warning: A History of the New World Order
Illuminism and the master plan for world domination
— by: David Allen Rivera, 1994, source: darivera.com
MHP hypertext version for non-profit educational use only
This reminds me of the joke about the inconsolable young man at his young wife’s graveside moaning over and over, “What am I going to do?” A kindly priest lays a hand on the man’s shoulder and says, “I know you feel terrible today but in a year, maybe two you will forget about this woman, have a new wife, some children and be happy again.” And the young man says, “Yeah, but what am I going to do tonight?”
I’m sure you are right that the history of these conspiracies go way back in time and it is fascinating and all but whatever Constantine did or didn’t do, one thing for sure is he didn’t bring down those towers. While some of us try to link the Mossad or the CIA with 9/11 are you suggesting we should look to ancient Rome first?
Okay. Deeper into the rabbit hole I just might go.
“Why do born-again people so often make you wish they’d never been born the first time.” — Katherine Whitehorn
“This reminds me of the joke..”~Jimbo
That’s funny, everything you say reminds me of a joke.
Reblogged this on David Visentin's Web Log, Links & Commentary Towards Real Democracy.