RSSI plead guilty. I am a Holocaust Overlooker.
Let’s just say I am somewhere between Lipstadt and Unz on this question…closer to Unz, actually, but don’t tell the ADL ; – ) “Ron Unz on “Holocaust Denial”_ on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Radio” https://noliesradio.org/archives/152978
Good point. We may surmise that Jolly’s mind-control experiments in prisons (and in Haight-Ashbury and other field study settings) included an element of talent spotting.
I don’t know. Several years ago I read a couple of books on the topic and hosted a debate between Thomas Dalton, author of Debating the Holocaust, and two supporters of the standard narrative, Roberto Muehlenkamp and Andrew Mathis. After comparing Dalton’s revisionist consensus for a Jewish death total of around 500,000 (from starvation, disease, exposure, some executions in the camps, mass shootings on the Eastern front, but no gas chambers) versus the standard narrative of six million total including millions killed in gas chambers, my impression is that the revisionists have a stronger case.
Point taken. “Liberal spiritual awakening” might be a three-word oxymoron.
It’s true that traditionalists wouldn’t make A Course in Miracles their bible, but would instead embrace orthodoxy based on authentic revelation. But generally traditionalists do believe there is a perennial philosophy that is expressed in different ways by different traditions, and they would probably agree that the gist of A Course in Miracles is somewhere in that ballpark.
Revelation is a Hebrew confidence-man's game, and is not necessary to establish sufficient proof of the being of a god.
"Indeed I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their general dogma that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a god."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, from Monticello, April 11, 1823
Source: National Archives
We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo was published in March 2015, less than three months after the event, eight months before the 11/13/15 follow-up spectacle that included the Bataclan shooting. At the time the Charlie Hebdo event was called “the French 9/11” and it did have a comparable impact.
My book on 11/13/15 (Bataclan, etc.) was also published less than three months after that event and is available on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0996143017
The “instant book” strategy has two big advantages: It prevents fresh information from being “memory holed,” and it maximizes impact by addressing the subject while it’s still fresh.
I agree that immorality is not a universal and necessary outcome of materialism, at least not in individual cases. But in the aggregate? Ibn Khaldun (following the Qur’an) and Spengler view of the rise and fall of civilizations as the product of moral behavior driven by something spiritual, a kind of Platonic ideal that infuses the rising civilization, giving its members something to live and sacrifice for beyond their own immediate material interests. As that spiritual energy dissipates over the generations, materialism reasserts itself, morality declines, and civilization decays.
As for existentialism: Speaking as a former existentialist, I lost faith in existentialist nihilism when I realized Sartre was right when he admitted that his absolutely free choice to speak and act “morally” (which entailed leftist politics) was arbitrary and capricious. An existentialist may arbitrarily choose to strive for the good of others, but may just as well strive for evil. Nothing in existentialism dictates that one choice is preferable to the other.
Outstanding French philosopher Roger Garaudy called it "Transcendence".
an ideal that infuses the rising civilization, giving its members something to live and sacrifice for beyond their own immediate material interests.
Sorry about the confusion. I recently began posting each hour of Friday’s show separately at my Patreon page. Here is the second hour: https://www.patreon.com/posts/28940637
For future reference, if you can’t find the second hour of Friday’s show here, please visit https://www.patreon.com/DrKevinBarrett .
Note that all of my Patreon posts are open to non-subscribers 72 hours or less after posting.
Very interesting! I hadn’t seen this. Presumably the people in charge of the current surveillance state agree that the more surveillance, the better. The real reason of course is that it increases their power. But they can claim “we need to do this to save humanity” to justify their power grab.
Any body who claim to write English like this satirizes himself. (Please do your beloved white race a favor and remove yourself from the gene pool.)
Sub-Saharan Africans or Nepalese aren’t retards, obviously,
Well, we agree on this. Frankly, it strikes me as absurd to say that half or more of the population of an entire country is mentally retarded.
But the problem is that something has to give here. If you just google a string like “mental retardation iq definition” you quickly come up with a host of links that say mention a working definition of mental retardation being at a cutoff of 70 IQ typically.
So, if you take what the IQ-ists are saying at face value, they are claiming that about 50% of the population of Black Africa suffers at least mild mental retardation! And, I mean, by their working definition of mental retardation! And the claim of Nepal at an average IQ of 60 is that the majority of the population is mentally retarded! Like, over 60% or something like that!
Well, I can’t recall ever knowing anybody from Nepal, but early last year, I took a trip to a few sub-saharan African countries for the first time. I was in Senegal, Gambia, and Guinea-Bissau. Obviously, I didn’t go around administering IQ tests to anybody, but I had some interaction with various people, like conversations with taxi drivers and waiters and the rest of it, people whom one would not expect to be of exceptional intelligence in their country. Based on that experience, and whatever experiences I had with people from Africa before that trip, I simply cannot take seriously the idea that there is a cognitive gap between Europeans and Africans anywhere near as large as what these IQ-ist types are claiming.
So, again, we’re not talking about whether the various human populations are all equal in all respects. There have been enough generations of separate evolution in different environments that there surely are differences. And that does include cognitive differences. I’m not claiming otherwise.
The question is whether the true differences are anywhere near the magnitude they are claiming.
So, you have a situation where people are making claims that, via casual observation, just seem absurd, that the average intelligence of Black Africans is so low that half of them qualify definitionally (and again, it’s just using these people’s definition!) as mentally retarded.
As far as I can see, the reason that people (on this site and others) get so committed to this stuff is that they very much want to believe it. And that’s really the crux of it. This is the most basic trap to fall into, to say things because they cause you emotional satisfaction, rather than because you really believe them to be true!
But, again, this problem that the writers I refer to as the “IQ-ists” are the most reliably unaware on any deep politics “red pill” issue. All these false flags and hoaxes that they run to propagandize the population, these people reliably fall for all of them. So what is one to conclude from this?
“The first amendment addresses government control of speech and not private actor censorship.” Right. But monopolies are not legitimate private actors. The premise of antitrust law is that all monopolies must either be broken up or (if they are natural monopolies) seized and run as public utilities. Since social media fora are natural monopolies, they are de facto public utilities. Those running them as (bogus) private corporations are criminals, since they are violating antitrust law. And the Justice Department, which refuses to break them up or seize them, is also criminal. Given all of this, the criminal monopolists should be prosecuted for, among other things, violating the First Amendment, since the outfits they are running must be run as public utilities in conformity with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
There is also a libertarian argument that all limited liability corporations are in fact public utilities: https://www.patreon.com/posts/sean-gabb-on-and-20767603
imagine if Ma Bell used their monopoly to decide who they allowed to use their phone lines depending on if that person or group's politics coincided with the owners of Bell Telephone.
The premise of antitrust law is that all monopolies must either be broken up or (if they are natural monopolies) seized and run as public utilities. Since social media fora are natural monopolies, they are de facto public utilities.
Can you recommend any sources on the Divine Feminine in Judaism?
I agree that one of the distortions (tahrif) in Christianity is its repression of the Divine Feminine. The Trinity “father-son-spirit” is an all-male reproductive fantasy. The repressed element is obviously the mother. The return of the repressed takes the form of mariolotry.
But doesn’t the Torah often portray Yawheh as an all-too-human, all-too-male patriarch (and a bit of a psychopath)?
The Qur’an’s first two tangible descriptions of God (ar-rahman ar-rahim) roughly translate as “the All-Merciful, All-Compassionate” and derive from the root meaning “womb” yielding the connotation that God’s loving mercy towards creation is like a mother’s love for her children. Other “most beautiful names of God” highlight qualities associated with masculinity including glory, strength, etc.
But Islam is very clear about God being neither male nor female. The Qur’an purifies discourse on God to remove the anthropomorphism that has crept into distorted versions of earlier scriptures. Worshipping an anthropomorphic god is just cosmic narcissism.
Actually Jews are overrepresented among renegade free thinkers, just as they are in so many other fields.
The problem is the power of organized tribal Jewry, representing a tiny fraction of the Jewish population, not Jewish individuals. The vast majority of individual Jews are just ordinary folks, who could and should wake up, in ever greater numbers, to the necessity of putting the criminal overlords out of business.
Polls show over 3/4 of Jews identify with the Judeo-supremacist state of Israel. Orthodox Jews flow out of NYC and conspire to take control of up-state NY towns for their own colonies. Jews make up 1.5% of the US population and are clustered around NYC and a few other cities on the coasts, and you are saying that an imagined silent majority of this minority are just good folks who want to sit under their olive trees?
"The problem is the power of organized tribal Jewry, representing a tiny fraction of the Jewish population, not Jewish individuals."
I would guess the ADL was responsible. They are in total panic mode, going all out to destroy the free internet before it destroys their crime network.
The premise of antitrust law is that all monopolies must either be broken up or (if they are natural monopolies) seized and run as public utilities. Since social media fora are natural monopolies, they are de facto public utilities.
imagine if Ma Bell used their monopoly to decide who they allowed to use their phone lines depending on if that person or group’s politics coincided with the owners of Bell Telephone.
‘Sorry, your phone service has been cut off because we’ve been listening to your conversations, and we don’t approve of your views.’
And all the government regulators went along with it.
That is effectively where we’re at today.
Your hypothesis that Christianity is necessary to repel immigration has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Fact is, Christianity invites immigration, because White Christians consider Black Christians their "brother," but do not consider White non-believers as their brother.Replies: @Commentator Mike, @Kevin Barrett, @Dumbo
Migrants to Europe 'need to go home', says Czech prime minister
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/25/europe-migrants-need-to-go-home-says-czech-prime-minister
The cited statistics are misleading. The real religion of European and American elites, and the official religion of the dominant institutions of the West, is secular humanist progressivist materialism. For a critique, see: https://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/12/28/arrf/
Blaming Christianity for Europe’s problems is absurd. Virtually nobody in Europe goes to church, thinks about God, follows religious precepts, or is the slightest bit traditionally religious. On the contrary, the most basic problem (demographic collapse) stems from the collapse of religion. Pat Buchanan in The Death of the West correctly observes that the decline of traditional religion tracks very closely with declining birth rates. Why? Because having children is an act of faith. It requires sacrificing one’s ego in service to the Other. That is what real, traditional, spiritual religion teaches. (God is the ultimate Other.) Creating a stable, reasonably happy family capable of raising children who themselves will want to do the same thing requires a massive sacrifice of one’s own opportunities for pleasure and freedom. Sensible materialist atheists have no good reason to make such sacrifices.
“Spiritualized altruism” fostered by religion is what holds complex societies together. The West is dying precisely because it abandoned traditional religion. Go back and read your Buchanan.
Europe adapted this blatantly anti-family apocalyptic religion most successfully during an era when it was a capital crime to print, own, or even read a Jewish-authored Bible. Once it got printed, everybody start believing what was inside the Bible, instead of following the European traditions that strictly limited the malevolent influence of the Jewish-authored Bible.
• “Woe unto them that are with child.” (Matthew 24:19, Mark 13:17, Luke 21:23)
• “Blessed are the childless women.” (Luke 23:29)
• "It is better not to marry!" (Matthew 19:10)
• "Choose to live like eunuchs." (Matthew 19:12)
• "Hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters." (Luke 14:26)
• "Forsake houses...wife, children." (Matthew 19:29)
• "Neither marry nor be given in marriage." (Matthew 22:30)
• “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” (1 Corinthians 7:1)
• "Stay unmarried." (1 Corinthians 7:8)
The Upton interview is posted at https://www.patreon.com/posts/29392718 and should soon be here at Unz.com as well.
Conversion to Islam, the ultimate universal monotheism, also fixes these issues. Muhammad Asad, né Leopold Weiss, became a great ethical universalist.
Listen where? Listen how?
Listen to Christopher Fulton and find out.
You’re missing the audio player under the headline.
More like an understatement.
Islam, like Christian apophatic theology, holds that God is ineffable. So when we try to wrap our minds and hearts around what the Creator and Sustainer of all existence could possibly be, the most obvious approach is to say what God is not. When we try to conceive of God by using concepts that could also be applied to humans, such as majesty, glory, mercy, compassion, and so on, we do so with the proviso that God is not really “like” a human being (or anything else in creation).
Islam holds fairly rigorously to this approach. It rejects anthropomorphic ideas of God, including any notion that God could really be “like” man or woman. Whereas Christianity, despite the best efforts of some of its mystics and apophatic theologians, often slips into imagining God as an old man with a beard…or (among people reacting against this imbalance) as the Virgin Mary.
That said, it is interesting that the first and most oft-remarked tangible characteristics of God in Islam, mercy and compassion, derive from the word for “womb” and connote a mother’s love for her children.
The problem wasn’t the tactics (invade Iraq with x or xx number of troops) but the strategy dictating any such invasion in the first place. The US should be allied with the whole Muslim East against the real long term strategic threats to US interests: China, Russia, and eventually India.
The Muslim East is weak, and weakness invites aggression and theft of resources. That’s why the Zionists can steal Palestine, Russia can steal Islamic Central Asia, India can steal Kashmir, China can steal East Turkestan, Buddhist fanatics can commit genocide in Myanmar, Serbs in Bosnia, etc. As Huntington said, Islam has bloody borders. That’s because Islam is weak, and outsiders are attacking and invading Islamic lands to loot their resources.
The US, which is trying to dominate or at least police the world from North America, must follow the grand strategy of balancing competing powers in Eurasia. That means helping the weaker powers (in this case Islamic countries) against stronger powers.
Instead, the Zionists have tricked us into fighting their wars against their neighbors and wasting trillions of dollars to try to weaken and destroy of the Islamic world—when our own interests dictate that we should be strengthening and defending it in order to balance the other great powers and promote peace and stability.
It was a 100 year lease, which is better described by the word purchase.
Not true. A respectable civil rights attorney, Lisa Bloom, handled Katie Johnson’s case. Shortly before the scheduled press conference at which Johnson was to appear publicly, she received multiple death threats: “Bloom said that her firm’s website was hacked, that Anonymous had claimed responsibility, and that death threats and a bomb threat came in afterwards.” https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation Johnson folded because she was terrified (and perhaps paid off).
“Respectable”?
A respectable civil rights attorney, Lisa Bloom, handled Katie Johnson’s case.
Being a feminist or Democrat (or nonfeminist or Republican) is irrelevant to a person’s credibility. It’s possible that Lisa Bloom was part of a conspiracy to invent a fictitious Katy Johnson story, in which case Bloom is guilty of criminal fraud as well as civil libel. That would be quite a risk for her to take, to say the least. It’s also possible that she was somehow duped by others, in which case they would be running the civil and criminal liabilities, while she would just get disbarred for negligence.
The same is true of Johnson’s attorney Thomas Meagher.
It is also possible that Johnson’s story is at least roughly accurate. There is supporting testimony from another Epstein victim.
If you set aside your prejudices about Democrats-Republicans, feminists-antifeminists, Trump-Hillary, etc., and just look at what’s been reported, you’ll agree with me that the allegations are credible (but of course unproven). If you suffer emotional blocks against thinking such things about a President, as so many did when similar things were reported about Bill Clinton, I sympathize…but also urge you to get psychiatric treatment so you can learn to face unpleasant facts and then get to work cleaning up this country.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/310836504/Katie-Johnson-Trump-Lawsuit
it isn't about our prejudices, but ((theirs)) (the ((media)), iow)If you're a feminist telling lies about Justice Kavanagh, (as someone mentioned) then they'll gush over your heroism.If you're a non-feminist living on a mountain in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, then a federal government assassin can put a sniper's bullet though your head, and all is good.So you see it all depends on how they perceive you.With Trump, their derangement is legendary. Their hatred is unhinged, and drives them literally to fits. If he says the two sides fighting in Charlottesville, both had bad elements, they'll turn themselves inside out with apoplectic convulsions. Whereas with Hillary, she can cackle over an assassinated head of state, murdered in a criminal putsch against a nation's sovereign government, and they'll all giggle along with her. So you see the one-sided double standard could not be more stark. Lying feminists and war criminals with the blood of thousands of innocents on their hands, is all good.But an honest non-feminist who doesn't love ZOG, can be executed with nary a peep. And for this reason, if they had something on Hillary, it'd be preposterous to expect them to pursue it. Duh.But if they had something on Trump, OMG brace yourselves for a screeching hysteria the likes of which will make the Russian hacking of our democracy seem like a nothing burger.
If you set aside your prejudices about Democrats-Republicans, feminists-antifeminists, Trump-Hillary, etc., and just look at what’s been reported, you’ll agree with me that the allegations are credible (but of course unproven). If you suffer emotional blocks against thinking such things about a President, as so many did when similar things were reported about Bill Clinton, I sympathize…but also urge you to get psychiatric treatment
Using Islamic terms when speaking about Truth?That's cute. No agenda here- just a truth teller seeking to help Christians have peace and freedom, huh?Cue the jazz hands and bowler hat. This author is that shady- naked propaganda. He, and Unz, insult our intelligence.Replies: @Kevin Barrett
A society that no longer believes in God no longer believes in truth, since God is al-haqq, THE truth, without Whom the whole notion of truth has no metaphysical basis.
I assume Christians agree with the Qur’an that “God is Truth.” Some (formerly Islamophobic) Christians who have studied the texts in the original languages say the Qur’an probably represents Jesus’s words and concepts at least as accurately as the Gospels do: http://bridgestocommonground.org/a-deadly-misunderstanding/
Definitely not. Larry said (quoting from memory): “I was talking with the, er…fire department commander, and we were saying, you know, there has been such terrible loss of life, maybe the best thing to do…is pull it. So we made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
There were no firefighters in WTC-7. (If there had been, he wouldn’t say “it,” he would say “them.” But there weren’t any, so the grammatical point is irrelevant.)
The “decision to pull” – “watched it collapse” statement, as all native English speakers know, carries a close causal and chronological link. Making the decision to pull caused the collapse, and the collapse happened shortly after the decision was made.
If there had been firefighters in the building at 11 a.m. rescuing Barry Jennings and Michael Hess (the only reports of firefighters ever entering WTC-7) and if Larry and his friend posing as a “er…fire department commander” had “pulled” them out then, and watched the building collapse at 5:20, six hours later, OBVIOUSLY Larry wouldn’t have said it the way he said it. He would have said “we pulled the firefighters out of the building in the morning. Later that evening, when it collapsed, we were glad we had” or something to that effect.
Those of us researching 9/11 in 2004 made a huge stink about Larry’s confession, which was well known by then. It was only many years later when Larry finally put out his silly alibi about “pulling firefighters.”
Only a fool or someone ignorant of colloquial English could think Larry was talking about pulling out firefighters. These people must really think we’re stupid.
9/11 was faked not to frame any specific country but the Muslim world in general, hence the “Global War on Terror”. Any specific country could then be targetted as part of that. Here is former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak explaining it to the BBC on the day of 9/11 :
9/11 was an Israeli plot through and through. Israel itself was created by terrorists and it has engaged in terrorism ever since.
If you say “Larry leased the buildings,” your listeners assume he would only control them for a short period, and certainly wouldn’t have the power to choose to tear them down and rebuild whatever he wanted. (Just as when you and I lease an apartment.) But Larry had and still has total power over the property, just as in “ownership.” So essentially it IS ownership.
“Purchased them on a 100 year lease” is the complete and accurate expression. But even that understates his ownership, because he demanded “right to rebuild” etc. etc. in the contract, giving him the same kind of total control over the property that “owners” have.
If I take out a 100 year lease on something, with the right to tear it down or alter it in any way I choose, obviously I “own” it. I am not just “leasing” it!
Very true! Goes back to the days of Thomas Robert Malthus. Finally, to some extent Thacher was able to abolish somewhat the concept of, “Purchased on a 100 year lease”
“Purchased them on a 100 year lease” is the complete and accurate expression. But even that understates his ownership, because he demanded “right to rebuild” etc. etc. in the contract, giving him the same kind of total control over the property that “owners” have.
There was presumably a convergence of interests between Israelis horrified by JFK’s commitment to stopping their nuclear program and Americans who wanted a coup for other reasons. But don’t underestimate Israel’s talent for manipulating Western intelligence services. For an fiction-based-on-fact insider’s perspective, read John Le Carre’s The Little Drummer Girl.
Will any qualified people will step forward to defend NIST’s WTC-7 report in a debate with Hulsey and his supporters? I very much doubt it. I couldn’t pay anybody from my own University to defend the official version of 9/11! http://debate911.blogspot.com
Both the NT and Qur’an radically revise the tribal, materialist, amoral/unethical OT to make it universal, spiritual, and moral/ethical.
Guyénot’s From Yahweh to Zion critiques the unrevised “Jewish” reading of the OT: https://www.amazon.com/Yahweh-Zion-Jealous-Promised-Civilizations/dp/0996143041/ref=sr_1_1
Did you get permission from the adherents of the Torah?
radically revise the tribal, materialist, amoral/unethical OT
One way to explain what is meant by “God is Truth” is by way of the classic metaphysical arguments. Neoplatonism, Ibn al-Arabi, etc. are the obvious references.
Another is to agree with the postmodern philosophers that in a Godless world there is no truth, just power.
You say: “It’s true that without God there would be no guarantee that good will triumph and wickedness succumb…” It’s worse than that. Without God or some equivalent, those who question what people “tend to agree on” will realize that “opposing murder, rape, theft, etc.” is an arbitrary rather than a necessary choice. Some of these questioners/skeptics/philosophers will end up agreeing with and joining forces with the psychopaths, the 2% who have no inborn aversion to murder, rape, theft, etc.
Additionally, without God or some equivalent metaphysical basis for morality, there is no good reason to rigorously adhere to truth.
Today’s post-religious ruling elite is a cesspool of psychopathic liars and criminals, and many of them are not born psychopaths, but were taught to be sociopathic by atheist philosophers like the self-professed “teacher of evil” Leo Strauss.
The ten pictures at https://www.nps.gov/media/photo/gallery-item.htm?pg=3941191&id=C7A5CE33-155D-451F-670470E00A6C301D&gid=C7A45234-155D-451F-67A019C294E6A905 provide underwhelming evidence that 200,000 pounds of airliner and contents were excavated from the earth beneath the virtually empty 15 foot diameter hole in the ground where USG says the plane “disappeared into the soft earth.”
The NTSB, which always “reconstructs” every destroyed plane piece by piece after every crash, showed up to do its job at Shanksville but was sent home by the FBI.
If anyone can find a full record of video and photo evidence documenting the supposed excavation of the 200,000 pounds of wreckage of Flight 93, and chain-of-possession evidence about where it went after alleged excavation and where it is now, please let me know!
This theory has occurred to others. It explains Daniel Lewin…though why he was using his own name is a mystery.
Some speculate that Daniel Lewin and other Israeli commandos hijacked the plane, set the controls for the WTC, and bailed out. If so, Lewin should have used an assumed name.
Here’s an interesting presentation by physicist Heinz Pommer including an unusual explanation of why conventional explosives might have been used in a nuclear demolition: https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/09/01/breathtaking-solving-nuclear-9-11-the-pommer-report/
All talk of nuclear detonations is an easily falsifiable hypothesis that anyone can test by wandering around ground zero with a Geiger counter. They're available on Amazon. What say you give it a try, Kevin?
an unusual explanation of why conventional explosives might have been used in a nuclear demolition
This appointment illustrates how Zionist Sabbatean Frankist Satanists have taken over what used to be Western Christianity. Tzvi, the founder of Sabbatean Frankist Satanism, taught his followers to systematically violate the Ten Commandments: “Though shalt kill, thou shalt commit adultery,” etc. Sabbateans believe that by committing abominations they can force God to bring on the Messiah, a Jewish military conqueror who will rule the world from a blood sacrifice temple built on the site of today’s al-Aqsa mosque. Their biggest abomination of all is the genocide of the Holy Land.
Today’s Catholic Church is a cesspool of Sabbatean Frankist Satanism, featuring systematic child abuse, money laundering, and other criminal activities, and the Protestants aren’t far behind. The GTU is now officially a branch of the Church of Satan.
Russia is a Christian republic.
Vladimir Putin is a Christian republican.
The underpinnings of ‘western-civilization’ have been discarded in Western Europe.
Russia has not yet entirely sold its soul to the moneychangers and the apostles of progress. It still has saints and sinners. (Its biggest sinners are gangsters who may actually run the world, as much as anyone does: https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/09/02/evidence-why-is-putin-kissing-israels-ass-what-do-they-have-on-him/ .)
Literature still mattered even in the hellhole that was Soviet Russia because Russians still understood, consciously or not, that the choices the human soul makes in its earthly journey have monumental consequences. Dostoevsky expressed this better than anyone ever has.
Today Russia is rediscovering its Christian identity, which terrifies the Sabbatean-Frankist secular-progressivist-materialist post-Christian West. The Grand Inquisitors in NY, DC, the City of London, and Tel Aviv are delivering an increasingly panicked monologue.
Shaykh Imran Hosein’s thesis—that the End Times will witness a war between the forces of Christ (Eastern Christianity allied with real Islam) and those of Antichrist (the Zionist West)—seems increasingly plausible.
Shaikh Imran Hosein is a bosom buddy of John Hagee. Both have prophesied the End Times many a time, but always missed the mark. And, people still buy their crap. I believe that you are a Muslim, whose belief should be that "Only God Has Hidden Knowledge". O' yes, the end of world is always been around the corner. LOL!
Shaykh Imran Hosein’s thesis—that the End Times will witness a war between the forces of Christ (Eastern Christianity allied with real Islam) and those of Antichrist (the Zionist West)—seems increasingly plausible.
It would be better to say that:
Today Russia is rediscovering its Christian identity, which terrifies the Sabbatean-Frankist secular-progressivist-materialist post-Christian West. The Grand Inquisitors in NY, DC, the City of London, and Tel Aviv are delivering an increasingly panicked monologue.
This seems wholly implausible:
Shaykh Imran Hosein’s thesis—that the End Times will witness a war between the forces of Christ (Eastern Christianity allied with real Islam) and those of Antichrist (the Zionist West)—seems increasingly plausible.
Prior to 9/11 the consensus of experts on the Middle East, Islam, Comparative Religion, etc. was that MI6 Zionist Bernard Lewis was an ignorant, extremist lunatic. When Lewis feuded with Edward Said, the whole academy sided with Said, who was elected president of MLA in a landslide.
The 9/11 neocon-Zionist coup terrorized the academy and made Lewis a mainstream guru, advisor to Bush Jr. and bestselling author. Since then the insane Zionist party line, which has always dominated in both liberal and conservative media as well as politics, has been forced on the academy, whose experts are smart enough and knowledgable enough to know how insane it is…but what can they do?
That is an excellent point, and a good illustration of what Dr. Ramahi is saying.
The Qur’an bans usury but does not mandate dinar and dirham. The insistence on dinar and dirham is based on non-Qur’anic Islamic tradition, which Dr. Ramahi says ought to be re-thought in light of the Qur’an’s insistence on critical thinking.
This article is a one-stop WWII Revisionism course. Could political changes some day make it possible to teach such a course at an actual American university?
We tried that on Korea, it didn’t work. https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-u-s-waged-germ-warfare-in-the-korean-war-and-denied-it-ever-since/5487929
I highlight the part I find particularly absurd.Also, re the "massive war crimes", I am perhaps less willing to impose standards used in the modern age of "precision weapons" to describe past warfighting as "war crimes" -- it made me recall this essay:Sabine Barnhart -- Würzburg in Flames — 1945 -- 'When collateral damage was the point'If able, the Chinese and North Koreans surely would have done the same to American cities -- if I was a soldier, caught up in such a war, I just might want my side to do everything it could, in terms of acceptable warfighting of the day, to end the war and keep me from dying in it.
There is no historical controversy as contentious or long-lasting as the North Korean and Chinese charges of U.S. use of biological weapons during the Korean War. For those who believe the charges to be false — and that includes much of American academia, but not all — they must assume the burden of explaining why the North Koreans or Chinese made up any bogus claims to attack the credibility of U.S. forces. Because they had no reason to do that.It is a historical fact that the United States carpet-bombed and napalmed North Korea, killing nearly 3 million civilians thereby.In other words, massive war crimes are already self-evident, ...
The offer is legitimate. Dr. Soudy just emailed me to clarify that his $10k debate offer is open to any US-licensed-and-practicing structural engineer or physical sciences engineer. Once prospective takers have stepped forward, and the most qualified one selected, Dr. Soudy and the challenger will work out the debate format and expert panel selection.
Regarding the $25,000 offer, Dr. Soudy adds that it too is open to any US-licensed-and-practicing structural engineer or physical sciences engineer. To claim the reward, the engineer will need to write a technical paper refuting the U of Alaska WTC 7 Study AND get it published in one of the top-level American Engineering Journals.
People aren’t supposed to enjoy cultural production from any place more than five miles from home, especially if the producer has a different skin tone?! JEEZ. No wonder cosmopolitan elites think white nationalists are uncouth morons.
Good luck trying to convince the French to stop enjoying and appropriating other people’s music, film, literature, cuisine, etc.
Who said anything about distance, or skin color? The point is that rap music is barbaric, and the form almost by itself defeats any other message its lyrics (if you can call them that) might theoretically proclaim.Replies: @ChuckOrloski, @Marty
People aren’t supposed to enjoy cultural production from any place more than five miles from home, especially if the producer has a different skin tone?!
If a corrupt engineering journal publishes a junk paper “refuting” the U. of Alaska study, the stark contrast between the original study and the junk “refutation” will be apparent to all intelligent people, especially science and engineering professionals. “All publicity is good publicity” when the facts are as obvious as they are in the case of WTC-7.
The full story of “where were the fighter jets” is actually even more incriminating now than it appeared when The New Pearl Harbor came out in 2004.
Likewise with the WTC demolitions. Today, virtually every independent scientist or engineer who carefully studies the issue sides with AE911Truth. The most prominent independent scientist who spent years trying to support the official myth of fire-induced collapses, Frank Greening, changed his mind. https://noliesradio.org/archives/73967
The full story (most of it anyway) is told in State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel by Thomas Suarez. From my review:
“Suarez’s meticulously researched volume shows that almost from the moment Zionists set foot in Palestine they began wantonly murdering and maiming people in service to their plan to empty the land of its inhabitants. Though the great majority of their victims have been Palestinians, the Zionists also slaughtered Europeans, Americans, non-Palestinian Arabs, and even their fellow Jews.”
https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/book-exposes-history-of-zionist-terrorism
Frank Greening was probably too busy looking at the trees with a microscope to notice the forest. And he was playing devil’s advocate, taking his best shot at shooting down the controlled demolition hypothesis. That’s my best guess at how he was able to spend several years avoiding the obvious truth. Likewise, people in denial sometimes experience cognitive dissonance regarding a family member who is a sexual predator or serial killer; it can take years to face up to reality.
Fractional reserve lending is fraud. The obvious solution is to prosecute the bankers, seize their ill-gotten assets, and reconstitute the currency system to ensure that only the Treasury Department is authorized to create money, as ordained by the Constitution. Private individuals and banks may lend, but they cannot be allowed to commit fraud by lending more than they possess.
I’m glad we all agree fractional reserve lending is fraud. Here’s a more controversial claim: Usury is also fraud. Ezra Pound and the prophets (not necessarily in that order) were right. Money is by definition a medium of exchange, not a commodity. Renting it out as a commodity is a kind of fraud.
Financial crimes such as fraud and theft involve an attempt to get something for nothing in a way that disadvantages the other party to the transaction. Using money to make more money without doing productive work is likewise parasitism and theft.
This interview doesn’t focus on why people aren’t receptive to 9/11 truth, but on impediments to clear and accurate thinking that affect everyone—including 9/11 truth supporters—on all kinds of issues.
Muslims are widely and fairly equally distributed among most of the biggest ethnic groups on earth, including Malaysians/Indonesians, South Asians, East Asians, Central Asians and Turkic peoples, Indian Subcontinent peoples, Persians, Russians, Eastern Europeans, North Africans, East Africans, West Africans, and increasingly people of northwestern European descent like Charles and me. “White guys” (including white people from native white Muslim backgrounds like Eddie Redzovic of The Deen Show https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/09/10/when-will-muslims-demand-9-11-truth/ ) far from being ignored by other Muslims get an unusually warm welcome wherever we go. Convert to Islam and see for yourself!
I agree here. I don't know if you've had a chance to hear about this new project by Br. Peter Sanders who was allowed to photograph people in the Muslim world that usuallly avoid photographs:
far from being ignored by other Muslims get an unusually warm welcome wherever we go.
What should we do then?
“We” (US) should drop the Global Domination Project and instead promote multipolar balance in Eurasia. China will inevitably become the strongest pole. The key US imperative will be to limit China’s dominance of Eurasia (and by extension the world). How? By helping strengthen non-Chinese entities.
Where to start? Strengthen the weakest entity, Dar al-Islam. Expose the 9/11 false flag that launched a phony counterproductive war on Islam for Israel. Use sympathy for the 27 million Muslims killed in the $7 trillion 9/11 wars to turn public opinion 180 degrees. Get out of the way and let the Muslim-majority lands unify into one or more Muslim superstates, as a strong majority of the population in those lands desires. Then support the new Muslim superstate(s) as a strategic counterweight to China (and Russia, Europe, and India).
China’s persecution of Muslims could help open the door to a US-Islamic alliance promoting a peaceful, balanced multipolar world.
Been there, done that.
*The key US imperative will be to limit China’s dominance of Eurasia (and by extension the world). How? By helping strengthen non-Chinese entities.
Where to start? Strengthen the weakest entity, Dar al-Islam.*
http://advocateyousuf.blogspot.com/2007/07/sino-american-turf-battle-in-pakistan.html
*An anti-American Islamic fanatic is arrested in Afghanistan, flown to Guantanamo Bay and then released back to Afghan authorities. He’s supposedly seething with anti-Americanism. But after crossing the border and returning to Pakistan, his first mission is to kidnap and kill a Chinese engineer.In doing so, Abdullah Mehsud also becomes the first Pakistani to kill a Chinese citizen on Pakistani soil in a high profile case, creating an unfortunate precedent in the sixty-year long history of close Sino-Pak ties.Mehsud was anti-American. Or was he? We haven’t seen him target any high or low profile American assets since the famous 2004 kidnappings*
There is actually a fairly extensive literature of controlled experimentation by non-religious-believers showing that prayer works. In some of these experiments, the people being prayed for didn’t know they were being prayed for, yet their outcomes were better than those who for whom no prayers were offered.
I learned about this literature from my atheist/agnostic M.D.-Ph.D. brother who makes a living getting grants for double blind medical experiments on such issues as does echinacea help the common cold, etc. He is highly skeptical of all such claims. (He ran a big experiment that found no evidence that echinacea helps colds.) He was impressed by the scientific literature on the efficacy of prayer. His position was that according to the science, prayer does seem to work, but we don’t know how or why.
Any of us, based on their knowledge and experience of humankind, can imagine what, and how, someone who can wrote the above would ban, and, contingently, decide how much weight to give to same someone's complaints about book-banning (certainly not as extensive as the book-banning they would do if they had the chance).
Anti-universal-monotheism ideologies, which might be termed the ideologies of Antichrist, include atheism, Satanism, humanism, materialism, and at least some varieties of Judaism. Extremist believers in these ideologies have long colluded to wage covert war against Christianity and Islam under the banner of freemasonry.
Wrong. Prophetic truth, the message of universal monotheism, is generally upheld by persecuted minorities, sometimes minorities of one, who neither wish nor have the power to ban anything. It is the Grand Inquisitors (whatever their nominal ideology) not the Christ who ban books.
Otherwise stated: We should censor ourselves.
I think we should be very careful about asserting or insinuating
It isn’t just the possibility of getting sued that should make us cautious about “nobody died” assertions. It’s the PR nightmare. The “nobody died” approach has handed the MSM the ultimate weapon in its anti-conspiracy-theory campaign: Depict all “conspiracy theorists” as insensitive louts who enjoy torturing poor grieving parents.
My colleagues in the Veterans Today editorial department think the bad guys dangled fabricated “nobody died” clues to lure people like Jim Fetzer down the wrong rabbit hole in order to discredit and take down all “conspiracy theorists.” Now THAT’S a conspiracy theory! And it might well be true.
Hmm. It's interesting how you (though it's not only you) miss the key point here. And that is this:The Sandy Hook hoax is a case with a certain special characteristic. Most of the (alleged) victims were little children, six or seven years old. The basic problem there is with phony victims in these hoaxes is that you have people with zero life history, except... it is perfectly normal that a six-year-old has about zero life history! In some recent private correspondence, somebody asked me whether I was worried that, based on my Betty Ong work, or the more recent article I wrote about a couple of Japanese phony victims something like what happened to Fetzer could be done to me. I answered that I was really quite confident that this would not happen. Why? Because the phony victims I'm writing about are people in their 30's and 40's and it's just too obvious on any close inspection that these are phonies!However, again, when the purported victim is a six-year-old child, the same things that are so glaring in the case of (fake) adult victims, are not really suspicious. (Like, of course a six-year-old has no employment history! Of course a six-year-old has no footprint on social media! Etc. etc.)It is my considered view that this sort of (alleged) victim, little children, as we have here in the Sandy Hook case is about the only scenario where they could pull this off -- I mean, what they did to Fetzer.In retrospect, making a big deal out of Sandy Hook, as opposed to the other cases in which the victims are all adults, would seem to be a pretty major blunder. But, well, okay, we're all human and we all make mistakes. IMHO, the real moral of the story is that truth oriented people have to really stop being such egotistical one-man shows and put our heads together and think things through. One could still fall into traps but the likelihood would be quite a bit lower, I think.But, as for this Sandy Hook/Fetzer situation, there is a problem now of drawing the wrong conclusions from this. The problem is not so much pointing out that fake victims are fake (which, IMO, is absolutely necessary!) but rather, choosing your spots carefully, and not choosing a case where the fake victim is a six-year-old child!When the fake victim is a 45-year-old, like Betty Ong, then you can be in a much stronger position, like: "Bring it on." (to quote George W. Bush)Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome, @Hippopotamusdrome
The “nobody died” approach has handed the MSM the ultimate weapon in its anti-conspiracy-theory campaign: Depict all “conspiracy theorists” as insensitive louts who enjoy torturing poor grieving parents.
Re: “If the clear intent of such an expression (of something truthful) was to damage a person’s reputation or to cause pain, financial lose etc, these findings should have some bearing on a ‘truth’ defence.”
Let’s apply that approach to Pozner vs. Fetzer. Fetzer believes he is telling the truth about Sandy Hook. He sincerely views himself as a disinterested truth-seeker. He has absolutely no intent to cause any kind of pain or financial loss to Pozner. Whereas Pozner, it could be easily argued, is so angry (perhaps understandably) that he is very much out to cause pain and financial loss to Fetzer.
So under your standard, even if Pozner is telling the truth (he lost his son, Sandy Hook happened more or less as advertised) he’s potentially guilty of a tort simply for seeking to punish Fetzer for spreading false and defamatory information. Even if Pozner were right in saying “Fetzer, you’re a total asshole for publishing these lies about me, I want to humiliate you and take your money” he would be guilty of a tort, simply for wanting to damage Fetzer, if we set aside the issue of truth.
Obviously truth is, and must be, an absolute defense against libel. Libel victims must show that the libel they suffered not only was false, but that the perpetrator knew or should have known it was false. My objection to the Pozner-vs.-Fetzer trial was that Fetzer was not given a reasonable opportunity to present his reasons for believing that his allegedly libelous statements were in fact truthful.
As for those who use truthful information against others in unacceptable ways, that would be harassment, not libel.
That’s a great idea. Do you know any Chinese truther billionaires who could sponsor a 9/11 conference there?
When I listed the constellation of related ideologies that I consider mistaken, singling out extremist believers in those ideologies, I certainly wasn’t suggesting that any such believers, moderate or extremist, should be censored.
Whereas there seems to be widespread agreement among much of the atheist-humanist managerial class in the West, and perhaps in Russia, India, and China as well, that “radical Muslims” and other “religious extremists” do need to be censored, and their views suppressed.
Many of my best friends, not to mention family members, are humanists, atheists, agnostics, etc. Like everyone else they are struggling with various good and evil impulses. There is a connection between a person’s worldview and the state of their soul, but it isn’t straightforward and simple. The best depiction of that connection is in Dostoevsky’s later novels.
God knows Jim Fetzer has his faults, but lack of sincerity is not one of them. I am pretty sure that nobody who actually knows him doubts his good faith.
“…killing possibly as many as 4 million mostly Muslims.”
Change that to 27 million.
Obviously Jim Fetzer did make his seemingly outrageous claims in good faith. But although truth is an absolute defense against libel, simply believing that you are telling the truth (good faith) is not.
That is why the court needed to determine, rather than just assume, what the truth actually is. To do that would require a robust adversarial process in which both sides have plenty of scope to argue their case. Unfortunately Jim wasn’t given a chance to argue that his claims are true, so the result, however “correct” it may be, is unsatisfying.
Lenny Pozner should be the most dissatisfied party of all. He says his motive, indeed his whole mission in life, is to put the conspiracy theories to rest. So he should have insisted that Fetzer have plenty of opportunity to make his case using deposition and discovery, expert testimony, and so on. In other words, give him enough rope to hang himself! Had that happened, it’s likely that Fetzer himself, faced with overwhelming evidence that he is wrong, would have recanted; and it’s even more likely that the Sandy Hook conspiracy movement would have been largely eliminated. Instead, the lack of balance in the courtroom left the empirical questions unresolved, and made Jim look like a martyr (at least to those predisposed to favor free speech and/or Sandy Hook conspiracy theories).
In 2006 I spoke extensively and in person with a mainstream journalist who rejected all “conspiracy theories” except one: chemtrails. He had investigated them for an Indiana MSM outfit. He said he spoke to military pilots and others involved in two separate programs: One is an experimental program exploring the possibility of spraying “sunscreen” to slow global warming; the other involves spraying nano size metallic particles for use in a military imaging system.
I don’t know whether he was telling the truth, but he sure sounded credible. If he was right, the military pilots spraying such stuff obviously know what they’re taking off with.
This topic is plagued by so many Rumsfeldian “unknown unknowns” that any given interpretation has only a small probability of being remotely correct. That said, the most plausible interpretation of the material covered in Richard Dolan’s UFOs and the National Security State is that Earth is visited and surveilled by ET and/or extradimensional entities, and that this fact has been intentionally obscured by one or more disinformation programs.
Presumably the visitors are no more interested in communicating with radio waves, or traveling by rocket, than New Yorkers are interested in communicating with New Jersey using smoke signals or visiting Tokyo in dugout canoes. So much for the Fermi Paradox.
A few years ago I interviewed former Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer, who claims that Earth is a busy crossroads for a wide variety of advanced intelligent life forms. If we overthrow the predatory bankster cabal, he says, the dominant (and relatively benign) Cosmic Federation will rescind their quarantine.
Too bad we don’t have a modern-day Smedley who could declare war on the racketeers. Why waste time on phony “terrorists” when you could send the same special forces teams to rendition the Rothschilds.
I’m left wondering when anyone has ever predicted the future with a convincing degree of accuracy, without relying on an acrane symbology devoid of concrete specifics and thereby open to any number of rationalized, ex post facto reconciliations with interim events. The more any such prediction relies on a linear projection from empirical data, the more it diverges in principle from the non-linear reality that we call life. On the other hand, a straight line can also end up intersecting a squiggly, indeterminate curve here and there. And when it does, we’ll know, though most likely not before then.
Which brings us to models based on probability. But while the concept of “probability” may be useful in helping us navigate what we imagine might be the future, it nevertheless remains a human concept, without any counterpart in the world of objective reality. In that latter world, something either happens or it doesn’t, and there’s no cigar left for “probably” to get a consolation prize.
Then again, engaging in predictions can be as entertaining a pastime as many others, so why not let loose a flurry of them and see which one hits the jackpot, while knowing full well that the odds are on the house.
I understand your consternation upon interpreting some of the comments Ms. McKinney makes in this interview with regard to historical relations between white and black Americans as playing the “race-card/white-privilege” thing. I would be highly disappointed in her, too, if I thought that was her main premise. But your blowing her perfunctory comments on historical race relations way out of proportion with respect to the rest (and main parts) of her political commentary. This may be, perhaps, because you’re not very familiar with her political career and experiences. No black politician or celebrity of any note would have dared openly defy Israel and its hasbara ilk in the US by taking part in a flotilla sailing to the middle east to break the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza (for which, of course, she was captured and held by the Israelis). Those type of black folk exclusively stay in their “race” lane and are unabashedly beholden to Jewish power for whatever prestige and wealth they imagine they possess.
I’ve always regarded Cynthia McKinney as one of the great political activists of contemporary times. If you know anything of her political career and stances, you will realize that her primary guiding principle has been making material the grand ideals of the US constitution for all Americans (as she asserted in this interview). You will also note that her political career was destroyed for refusing to pledge allegiance to Israel and Jewish zionism – unlike virtually the entirety of her congressional colleagues…black, white, or other. She has militated against the stranglehold that Zionist Jews have on all of our social institutions and the detrimental impact of this power on America and all its peoples. Unlike, say, virtually all members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), “race” politics was never at the core of her political concerns. Her political principles were, and still are, nationalistic and all-inclusive. Her political career went up in flames for standing up to “power” on behalf of the American people (not just blacks). In fact, it was often insinuated that she, as a black politician and woman, to boot, was over-stepping her “bounds” by not simply sticking to “race” matters, as virtually all other black politicians (particularly of the democrat persuasion) do.
If you listen closely to the discussion, she makes clear that there is nothing more she’d like to see than black and white (and other) Americans coalescing to fight against the Jewish zionists (and their goyim puppets) who have eaten away at the core values of the US constitution and American society from within. But she asks, as she says her black friends remind her, why should blacks throw their lot in with whites that they cannot trust to uphold the principles of mutual respect and dignity between the races in the process of turning back this threat to all Americans who believe in and wish to re-root our society in the ideals of the constitution?
The question is not without validity. Of course, white immigrants of the 19th and early 20th centuries, by and large, had nothing to do with black slavery. But they did ignite the anti-black Draft Riots of the civil war era. They did indeed vigorously condone and participate in Jim Crow-ism throughout most of the 20th century. And indeed, the Unz review is chock-full of fairly influential writers(at least among a cadre of disaffected whites) that would love nothing more than to see Jim Crow re-instituted in the US! These writers (excepting one or two) will go far out of their way to avoid pointing any fingers at the Jewish zionist element really at the root of the problems they rail against – putting the blame for everything they see wrong entirely on blacks, migrants, queers, etc., instead of on the not-so-hidden puppet masters behind these tectonic disturbances in contemporary America. How cowardly! While Cynthia McKinney has the balls and humanity to point the finger at the real culprits, these cowards wouldn’t dare lift a finger, much less point it in the direction it should be aimed.
So given all this, why wouldn’t the question of “trust” be a legitimate one? But again, if you heard her out, she asks for and seeks solutions to these historical “trust” issues in order to unite American society and its peoples to fight the cancer devouring the body-politic from the inside out. There is no chance of abating the deterioration without that kind of common understanding as a unifying catalyst. The historical narrative to which Ms. McKinney briefly refers, and which Americans (both black and white) seem so reluctant to distance themselves from, certainly exacerbates the problem. In fact, observing much of the product of the media complex (entertainment and news), and education system, one might even assert that making contemporary that which belongs to a distant place and time is a deliberate vector in the “divide and conquer” strategy we see in effect today. And right now, there is little evidence that Americans are willing and able to overcome themselves to save themselves in that regard.
Very few are as “woke” as they may think themselves to be. If people were, there might be common understanding of the real threats to our society, and reasonable proposals for dealing with these threats. Any ideas? Cynthia McKinney is searching high and low for answers. So am I.
Not true. Positivism is a symptom of the West’s intellectual decline.
Yes, there are more mediocrities in the humanities than in the hard sciences, but that’s only because we choose to tolerate them. (And, increasingly, encourage them.) If universities tolerated bad mathematical thinkers the way they tolerate and encourage bad humanities thinkers, we’d have mathematics departments dominated by people who say it’s sexist, racist, and transphobic to deny that two plus two make three.
Not true ? What’s not true? Clear intelligible sentences are appreciated.
Positivism?? I have no idea what that entails. I’m an engineer – EE / CS. Throughout my educational training and my life experience I have no idea what bullshit positivism represents, nor do I care.
This is more made up nonsense by the fraudulent soft science / humanities / social science / basket weaving crowd. Those folks make up stuff as important as belly button lint and then claim some genius insight that the rest of us that actually produce the real world can’t comprehend.
I read your post several times and have no idea what your point is. I don’t speak esoteric gibberish. I always thought Professor Irwin Corey was funny, but you folks take his act to a whole new level.
My school also had some basket weaving courses like History, Economics, etc. That’s where all the folks that washed out of the engineering curriculum migrated towards.
I remember taking a forced Economics course and the professor was telling the class that the Vietnam war was good for the economy. I got up called him a horses ass and he threw me out of his class. Good thing was that the dean knew he was a horses ass and allowed me to take an additional math class instead.
Can you tell me what a philosophy major is good for? If the world had no philosophers, what would happen? I know what would happen if all the engineers disappeared, but I can’t think of a single thing that the world would miss if philosophers vanished except a lot of hot air.
The Humanities and Social Sciences are fraudulent areas of study as they don’t produce anything that can be empirically tested. It’s a lot of hand waving and trying to get to some consensus among the various story tellers to agree on a line of BS. Just look at Climate Science or Economics to realize that on net these are detrimental to the society because they claim expertise that’s just not there.
You’re taking positivism (look it up) to an absurd extreme.
The Unz Review is obviously a humanities journal. We discuss things like history, philosophy, political science, etc. That’s what you’re doing right now…not very well, but at least you’re trying.
“Note that “Allah” is not a name, it is the word “God” and “rasul” can be translated as “prophet”.”
The word Allah is a name; it is in fact the Supreme Name (Ism Azam). A name is a word after all.
As for the word ‘rasul’ its meaning is Messenger; the word for Prophet is ‘naby. A Rasul is the vehicle of a Divine Revelation, whereas a Prophet is rather an eminent continuator of the Revelation. The Rasul is the higher rank; there have been relatively few of them in comparison to the multitude of prophets.
———————————
“Was Islam really spread by the sword? Maybe. But anybody making that claim better make darn sure that his/her religion, country or ideology has a much better record. If not, then this is pure hypocrisy!”
But the statement in question is not merely a subjectivism. It is either a historical truth or not. The “record” of the faith of a person who is of a different faith is irrelevant. A pertinent issue would be to what extent was the faith spread by the sword. This doubtless varied according to place and time. Hypocrisy might come in if there is an element of untruth in a person’s affirmations and opinions, or an element of bad faith or of impassioned bias or prejudice.
———————————-
Comparing Christianity and Islam is a task beyond the Saker in my view. He is doubtless well-intentioned, but essentially he is way over his head, a dilettante.
———————————-
“The Vision of Islam” by Sachiko Murata and Wm. Chittick, is a good intro. to Islam. But the very best and most profound treatment by far is Frithjof Schuon’s “Understanding Islam.” It is a demanding book, to be sure. Martin Lings’ book “Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources”is best biography of Muhammad. There is a wonderful video of Lings’ Pilgrimage to Mecca in 1941:
Circling the House of God: Martin Lings Narrates His Hajj Journey (The Faith)
Video Link
Saker is correct that word Allah it is NOT a name. Allah consists of two words, "al" and "ilah" which means, "The God".Jews and Christians use the same word, but write it differently in English because of vowels differences in Arabic and English, such as many versions of the name Mohammad in English. Quran and Muslim use ilah in English for God and Jews/Christians use eloh for God in English. Both ilah and eloh are same word, and both can become dual and plural, such as elohim which is a plural of eloh (meaning three or more gods).The Jews also use the plural form of elohim for God due to the respect for the Supreme Being. Also, Jews use elohim for gods, but in the first case elohim is used with a singular verb and in the later case elohim is used with plural verb. Such as elohim (God) is walking and elohim (gods) are walking.However, the beauty of allah is which is two words, cannot be made plural.BTW, both ilah and eloh are feminine nouns. Do you think that God has a gender? And, his gender is feminine?Replies: @peterAUS
“Note that “Allah” is not a name, it is the word “God” and “rasul” can be translated as “prophet”.”The word Allah is a name; it is in fact the Supreme Name (Ism Azam). A name is a word after all.
US Americans were ignorant about Islam before the 9/11 false flag. Since 2001 they have been mentally and emotionally crippled by Zionist-inflicted PTSD. This article might help a few recover from their illness. The rest can keep vomiting bloody bile into the comments section.
The Saker suggests that the main (only?) public-policy-relevant difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam supports the death penalty while Christianity opposes it. That may be vaguely true at a hyper-general level. But historically speaking I doubt there has been less capital punishment in Christiandom than Islamdom. And the since the Qur’an makes it clear that God’s mercy ultimately prevails over His wrath, and since its prescriptions for harsh justice are tempered by injunctions that mercy is better, virtually all Islamic scholars agree that it is always better for, say, the families of murder victims to forgive, rather than execute, the murderer of their loved ones. Even the Taliban, when its judges preside over murder trials, make every effort to convince victims’ family members to forgive and let the killer go free (typically after paying a fine). So Islam has its own way of being anti-capital-punishment.
Those who exclude Islam from “the West” are the ones rejecting their own history.
European culture is a mix of Middle Eastern monotheism and classical Greco-Roman culture. The correct version of Middle Eastern monotheism, and corrected version of Christianity, is Islam; and it was through Islamicate civilization that the barbarians on the northwestern fringes of Eurasia rediscovered classical culture.
The Enlightenment, the source of modern Western culture, was heavily influenced by Islam. The real American religion is Emerson and Thoreau’s Unitarianism, which is in essence de-ritualized Islam. https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/enlightenment-unitarianism
This is, I believe, largely a myth. While some Arab translators deserve respect for having translated Aristotle etc and so help to repopularize them, the Byzantine empire kept intact a lot of materials from classical antiquity, and they came mostly from there to the West, but even in Medieval Western Europe several texts from classical antiquity were kept as well. In fact, many of the "lost" works were not really "lost", just untranslated or not easily available to most people. Of course a lot was lost too, but that was in a way unavoidable.
and it was through Islamicate civilization that the barbarians on the northwestern fringes of Eurasia rediscovered classical culture.
I always post a description of the live two-hour show at https://kevinbarrett.heresycentral.is/category/radio/ first. Then when I archive the show I divide it into two separate hours. In this case I didn’t get the description fixed in time. Sorry! In any case, all shows become available here at Unz, and also at https://www.patreon.com/DrKevinBarrett where the paywall comes down 72 hours after the show is posted.
This is, I believe, largely a myth. While some Arab translators deserve respect for having translated Aristotle etc and so help to repopularize them, the Byzantine empire kept intact a lot of materials from classical antiquity, and they came mostly from there to the West, but even in Medieval Western Europe several texts from classical antiquity were kept as well. In fact, many of the "lost" works were not really "lost", just untranslated or not easily available to most people. Of course a lot was lost too, but that was in a way unavoidable.
and it was through Islamicate civilization that the barbarians on the northwestern fringes of Eurasia rediscovered classical culture.
It’s true that Byzantium, like al-Andalus and other centers of Islamicate civilization, was a source of the classical texts that sparked the European Renaissance. But Islamicate civilization, stretching from Iberia to China and dominating the “world system” of economic and intellectual exchange, was vastly larger and to some extent encompassed and included Byzantium as one of its minor component parts.
Additionally, Eastern Christianity always coexisted with Islam, with vibrant Christian communities existing throughout much of the Islamic heartland under Muslim protection. Christian scholars engaged in constant cultural exchange with their Muslim counterparts. So Byzantium was a small outpost of the larger Islamicate world system in which classical civilization continued and developed, while Western Europe collapsed into barbarism.
For the big picture on Islamicate civilization, read Marshall Hodgson, the best Western writer on the topic.
Please recommend specific transcription software!
Laurent Guyénot’s From Yahweh to Zion takes up where Piper left off, and it is much better written (and very well translated ; – ) https://www.amazon.com/Yahweh-Zion-Jealous-Promised-Civilizations/dp/0996143041/ref=sr_1_1
Replies: @Kevin Barrett
Gilad Atzmon
@giladatzmon
Gilad Atzmon is an anti-Semitic author and musician who describes himself as an “ex-Israeli” and an “ex-Jew.” He is an outspoken promoter of classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and a fierce critic of Jewish identity.
Kevin Barrett
https://www.facebook.com/kevinj.barrett.12
A 9/11 truther and anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist who hosts a wide array of anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers on his internet radio show and writes for the Unz Review.
Check out my response to the ADL at https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/11/25/adl-shortlist/
I was thinking the same thing. https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/11/30/evo-zio/
One of the incongruous elements of Gragg’s novel is that the forces of his self-styled Mahdi act like Wahhabi-takfiris but have their main base in the Shia majority countries Iraq and Iran.
I think he basically took the British accounts of the 19th century Sudanese Mahdi uprising and stamped that template on today’s Middle East, where it doesn’t fit. Those British accounts were, of course, extremely self serving, as victors’ history always is, demonizing and dehumanizing the heroes who fought against a massively superior force that was invading and looting their country.
These are spontaneous audio interviews. Nobody was speaking from notes or saw my questions beforehand. Both Kimmel and Tarpley got enough details right to demonstrate their mastery of the material, despite this and a few other “oral typos.”
Whether one agrees with all their perspectives and conclusions is another matter.
Great interviews, Kevin–lots of interesting perspectives.
I always enjoy Tarpley even when I (one of those nasty “libertarian” types) disagree with him.
His comments on Churchill wanting to maximize American losses was very interesting.
I remain unconvinced that World War II was in America’s national interest.
The problem is that the Deep State has cried “Wolf” so many times (often with its own false flags) that it is impossible to tell when the “Wolf” is real.
I certainly would not want to risk my life or the life of family members based on their propaganda claims.
The Tarpley discussion made it clear there was no “American” position on much of anything–there were factions with different views jockeying for position.
The map is not the territory.
My main source on SLA Marshall is Col. Dave Grossman’s remarkable On Killing. What are your sources impugning Marshall?
The Soviet conventional threat was real. But Soviet nuclear capabilities were wildly exaggerated. Throughout the 1950s into the early 1960s Russia had few nuclear-capable missiles, and lots of empty silos. The US figured that out with certainty in 1961. That’s why on July 20, 1961 the Joint Chiefs presented to JFK the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) for a “Pearl Harbor” type sneak attack on Russia using 3,000 nuclear weapons. The 1961 SIOP was designed to annihilate the Soviet Union before it reached nuclear parity with the U.S. In a scene right out of Dr. Strangelove, JFK angrily dismissed the Joint Chiefs who had basically told him “just do it, Mr. President! You’ll only lose 20 million Americans, tops!”
Even after the Soviets caught up and established nuclear parity by the 1970s the US nuclear deterrent was such that the USSR would never have dreamed of invading Western Europe.
Throughout the Cold War period the US was the aggressor and the Russians were playing defense. Plus ça change…
It may not have been peace loving. Ask the Indians, Mexicans, and Filipinos about that. But it had lower military budgets, not much in the way of a standing army, a strong current of anti-imperialist ideology, few military bases outside its borders, and a consensus supporting George Washington’s warning to stay out of European and foreign quarrels. The massively-funded (Rothschild-driven) propaganda effort that dragged Americans into WWI couldn’t overcome this basic predisposition in the American people and a substantial segment of the elites—witness the 88% “isolationist” sentiment on December 6th, 1941. What finally overcame it was Pearl Harbor.
Any real (antiwar) Republican could have destroyed Roosevelt in a landslide in the 1940 election, so strong was the American people’s antiwar sentiment. So the House of Morgan, the US agent of the Rothschilds, foisted a nobody, the deceptively pro-war Republican Wilkie (a stealth FDR ally) on the Republicans through massive bribery, slick PR, and murder. This mind-boggling coup d’etat is memorably described in Gore Vidal’s historical novel The Golden Age.
I am not particularly fond of the alt-right, especially its racialist elements: https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/rights-and-wrongs-of-the-alt-right
But even I can see that Craig Nelsen’s lawsuit against the SPLC, and his larger project, is obviously worthy of support.
Pro-white folks ought to put their energy and money into supporting people like Craig who are doing something positive for the most disadvantaged whites, while maintaining respectful relations with non-whites. Craig and Sherman together can win the hearts of the jury, and of the wider public that hears about the case. The MSM will be fighting an uphill battle if it tries to demonize them.
Ron Unz has argued that the truth movement ought to recognize that its primary enemy is the mainstream media—and strategically work to discredit it by “swarming” its weakest links with alternative perspectives.
Follow the vets on this one.
Recently some of the young, just-returning-from-Afganistan soldiers, and our other wars also, are forming the equivalent of the old Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
The new movement should be getting more attention soon. It’s still fairly new and very under-reported, but the are getting around to talking with the older vets and civilians and gaining some traction.
What was heartening about the old VVAW was that they made great strides in shaking Nixon’s “silent majority” horse apples by simply talking to their fathers, uncles, veterans of Korea or WWII and telling them it’s really wasn’t about the long-haired draft dodgers vs Patriotism. A year after Nixon’s 1972 landslide lots of the older vets wouldn’t admit to voting for Dick, which was a joy to behold.
Face it, the media and government have made a cult of the Thank a Vet and all that. Some of us actual vets smell a rat. The UK has created the same sort of cult, which is just as suspicious as ours.
Not professors or specialist academics. Just the young people who saw what they saw and can spread the news to the rest of the country. It worked a bit back then, might work now.
Anyone here who’s recently back or has some useful things to say about the start of the current wars might want to have a thread dedicated to that?
Face it, the media and government have made a cult of the Thank a Vet and all that. Some of us actual vets smell a rat. The UK has created the same sort of cult, which is just as suspicious as ours.Not professors or specialist academics. Just the young people who saw what they saw and can spread the news to the rest of the country. It worked a bit back then, might work now.Anyone here who’s recently back or has some useful things to say about the start of the current wars might want to have a thread dedicated to that?
It will be quickly taken over by Trotskyites, the split when select Infantry are charged with murders on the Afghanistan battlefield.
Recently some of the young, just-returning-from-Afganistan soldiers, and our other wars also, are forming the equivalent of the old Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
The new movement should be getting more attention soon.
Whew. For a moment there I thought the interview was with the Unabomber, but that's Ted Kaczynski. But actually an interview with the Unabomber might be interesting; his manifesto was.Replies: @Kevin Barrett
Thaddeus Kozinski
Both Thaddeus and Ted are astute critics of modernity.
The secular liberalism that Thaddeus criticizes leads straight to the technological nightmare that Ted wants to blow up.
If anyone in Hollywood wants to buy the rights to this interview, I’m sure it would make a gripping thriller of a conversation movie.
Love this.
a spiritual authority that has some real say and control over what goes on in society
When did this happen? One example would be nice, three would be quite instructive.
just as imams would depose sultans
The most obvious example is when Imam Khomeini deposed the Sultan (Shah) in 1979.
Sultans have struggled against the religious scholars and saints for legitimacy throughout the past 1300 years of Moroccan history. Rulers have routinely lost some or all of their authority due to religious edicts/uprisings of various kinds. https://www.amazon.com/Realm-Saint-Authority-Moroccan-Sufism/dp/0292712103
Plenty of other examples are out there for other Muslim-majority lands. A good place to start to get a sense of the big picture is Marshall Hodgson’s three-volume masterpiece The Venture of Islam.
The problem wasn’t being too political. It was the content of his politics, starting with 9/11 truth.
The US can no longer get what it wants. It has wanted to take back Venezuela for two decades and can’t do it. It wanted the Taliban defeated and eliminated by 2002. It wanted a stable pro-Israel pro-US Iraq by 2004 at the latest. It wanted Iran, the “7th country in 5 years” destroyed (or “regime changed”) by 2006. It wanted Assad out. It wanted North Korea to give up its nukes. It wanted Turkey to stop working with Russia and give up the S-400. It wanted Pakistan to stop tilting toward China. It wanted the Ukronazis to win. It wanted Russia to cave. It wanted to stop Russia from being Europe’s biggest energy supplier. It wanted Chinese economic growth, and the technological and military power it buys, to flatline. And so on.
Meanwhile the other poles of the multipolar world led by Russia, China, and Iran have let the US spend itself into a corner. The dollar is hollowed out and will collapse whenever the other poles want it to. And the big expensive military that killed the dollar can’t even beat backwards tribesmen in places like Yemen and Afghanistan. So the 2020s will undoubtedly witness the US getting less and less of what it wants. The US ability to dictate terms to the world is over.
As for the Zionists, they are just a parasite that sucks whatever blood is available. America’s blood is almost gone. So they will diversify their bloodsucking, and are in fact already doing so.
But the US never got everything it wanted. During the Cold War, it lost Cuba. And even its successes in Latin America smeared US reputation as it had to support right-wing death squads. US pulled out of Vietnam. US power was at its zenith with the fall of Soviet Empire, but by the end of the 20th century, Putin and nationalists were regaining power in Russia. And the Middle East was mostly intact except for Iraq that had been crushed in the Gulf War. (Still, Hussein was in power until 2003.) So, it's wrong to say the world order went from US getting everything to US not getting everything. US never got everything.
The US can no longer get what it wants.
.
It has wanted to take back Venezuela for two decades and can’t do it
Maybe, maybe not. In a way, the Taliban resistance is useful excuse for the US to keep occupying the nation. If the Taliban had really been eradicated, US would no longer have any reason to stay. US wants to occupy Afghanistan, not let it go. So, as long as the US has the 'Taliban' excuse, it stays and gets what it wants, thus encircling both Russia and Iran.
It wanted the Taliban defeated and eliminated by 2002. It wanted a stable pro-Israel pro-US Iraq by 2004 at the latest.
The Ukronazis did win. They are still in power in alliance with Judeo-Nazis. Also, the energy war is just starting. With the shale revolution, the US aims to export tons of liquid gas to the EU.
It wanted the Ukronazis to win. It wanted Russia to cave. It wanted to stop Russia from being Europe’s biggest energy supplier.
But even now, nothing comes close to the power of the dollar. And Chinese economy depends so much on export to the US. In that sense, US has China by the balls. China relies far more on US market than other way around. Also, US military didn't engage in Yemen. In Afghanistan, it is there to occupy and continues to do so.
The dollar is hollowed out and will collapse whenever the other poles want it to. And the big expensive military that killed the dollar can’t even beat backwards tribesmen in places like Yemen and Afghanistan.
But the US is still the #1 destination for smart people around the world. They will coming to NY, LA, and San Fran to serve the US in its high-tech domination. Immigration is mass treason. Hindus, Muslims, Chinese, Russians, and etc come to the US to make money and to serve the Empire of Judea, often against their own kind. Palestinians in the US pay taxes that go to support Israel's oppression of Palestinians.
So the 2020s will undoubtedly witness the US getting less and less of what it wants.
The problem is they are para-hosts. Yes, Jewish power is parasitic and sucks blood, as in the 2008 bank bailouts. But Jewish genius does create lots of new enterprise and money, and goyim(esp politicians) suck on Jewish money and have grown dependent on it. Jews are not like the Sicilian-Americans in GOODFELLAS who are purely parasitic or like Gypsies who only steal. Jews do a lot of bad shit but they are also at the frontline of the creating the new world of technology and markets. Thus, too many goyim have grown dependent on Jewish money-making. They suck blood of Jews who suck on blood of goyim.Replies: @anonymous
As for the Zionists, they are just a parasite that sucks whatever blood is available.
Decline of US empire? No, US is still the sole superpower.
Economics says otherwise.
Peak economic power for the Western world, of which the US still is the undisputed leader, was reached in the 1950’s, with this block producing over 65% of the world’s GDP.
By 2015, the West’s share had shrunk to below 45%, and the trend is accelerating.
Short of the occurrence of WW3 and the incertitude it would bring, there is no way the US Deep State and its all-controlling Zionist parasite can continue “leading” the world.
Based on facts on the ground, it seem China is using the standard counterinsurgency strategy of going after the whole population that shares some of the ideas (or even religion) of the handful of active insurgents. That’s a very bad strategy, strategically as well as morally. The only way for China to “win” would be to complete another genocide, like their 19th century Zunghar Holocaust, which the world’s nearly 2 billion Muslims have not forgotten and will never forgive. The destruction of the Uyghurs would set the stage for the destruction of the New Silk Road and a 1000 year Muslim war on China.
LOL. CIA disinformation and media echo chamber are not "facts" on the ground.
"Based on facts on the ground..."
Think before you write, Mr Barrett. Do you think China is so stupid? What is China's incentive for going after the WHOLE population? Don't they understand all the bad and extremely obvious consequences that you superficially anticipate here?
"China.... going after the whole population that shares some of the ideas (or even religion) of the handful of active insurgents."
I assume you meant Dungan, not Zunghar. There was Dzungar which was different from Dungan. If you are being honest you should have told the whole story, so the whole world can learn from this tragedy. Instead, you are cherry-picking history to promote your agenda. For these who aren't familiar with the so-called "Zungar Holocaus", here is a little more info. After the Taiping Rebellion (Chinese against Manchu's rule - 1850 to 1864), the Manchu Qing dynasty was severely weakened and started gradually losing control of some parts of China. There were a lot of social unrest during and after the Taiping Rebellion. The social unrest in ShannXi province became skirmish between Hui and Han Chinese, and skirmishes turned into a full-blown Hui rebellion. The rebellion started in 1862 and was put down by the Qing government army in 1873. In ShannXi and Gansu province alone, 20 million people died, and most of them were Han Chinese. In terms of percentage, Hui and Han Chinese suffered equally - about 74.5%. What Kevin failed to mention was the massacres of the Han Chinese perpetrated by the Muslim army. A case in point, in Jan 1863 (Chinese Lunar Calendar) when Hui army took the city "Gu Yuan", they killed over 200,000 civilians. In Aug 1863, they killed double of that number of civilians in the city "Ping Liang Fu". In Oct 1863, they massacred about 150,000 civilian in the city of "Ning Xia Fu". There were a lot killings on both sides; there were a lot of victims and sufferings. I guess in your book Chinese victims don't count much even though more Chinese civilians died in the rebellion.
The only way for China to “win” would be to complete another genocide, like their 19th century Zunghar Holocaust, which the world’s nearly 2 billion Muslims have not forgotten and will never forgive