TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Kevin Barrett: "I am not a hardcore nonviolence activist" (39 posts)

1. Arabesque
   Member

   Kevin Barrett: "I am not a hardcore nonviolence activist" http://www.911blogger.com/node/10835

   He's not kidding.

   As I understand it, the usual penalty for treason is hanging, not death by firing squad. In that case, it is likely that Mr. Bush will be hanged, not shot, for treason. By making this prediction, am I running the risk of having my clothesline confiscated? I also think that there is a real possibility that Mr. Bush will be electrocuted for the mass murder of 2,500 Americans in the World Trade Center. By stating this, am I risking a court order shutting off my electricity? I also foresee a small but very real possibility that Mr. Bush will die in the gas chamber. Does raising this possibility mean that my gas could be cut off? http://www.dailytakes.com/?p=825

   As the example of Nuremburg suggests, journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold. You would be well advised to strive for more balanced and accurate coverage in the future. http://www.mujca.com/popper.htm

   Amy [Goodman], you will one day find yourself on the scaffold, condemned to hang alongside the other Goebbels-style traitors and mass-murder-coverup-conspirators from the corporate media you pretend to criticize. http://www.mujca.com/amy.htm

   The State Department doesn’t know what it is talking about, but what else is new? Frankly I wonder who wrote this for the State Department. We need to find out because they are going to have to go up there on the scaffold with the other people who planned the attacks and more importantly the people who covered them up. The people complicit in the attacks need to be tried, condemned and sentenced. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-...

   First Kevin Barrett said that Fox News employees should be hung. Then he said that the producers of United 93 should be tried for inciting war crimes, now he is expanding his list of those on death row to include just about every journalist in the world, while discussing an e-mail exchange he had with a journalist for Harper’s Magazine:

   "My response to that was, you know, I think that anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/kevin...

   "If you are not aware that you're covering up for that traitor and mass murderer and yes insurance fraudster Silverstein, you'll figure it out when you're beside him on the scaffold. I'll be saving this email as evidence for your trial." http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/semiliterateparano...

   Posted 17 years ago #
2. Arabesque
   Member

   Question:

   Do you think there is a coordinated campaign to highlight--even invent these threats and make Barrett (and by extension the 9/11 truth movement) look bad? His last article in particular (that I posted here) has gotten quite a lot of attention and ridicule.

   Check out that last link for how effective this strategy could be. I recommend especially the last link, which references many threats to straw-man artist, and occasional "conspiracy theory" debunker Mark Roberts.

   Everyone from Loose Change, to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and Kevin Barrett want him dead: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/semiliterateparano...

   I almost feel bad for the guy.

   Posted 17 years ago #
3. truthmod
   Administrator

   Great collection of quotes. This sounds exactly like some of the things WINGTV was saying about Nick Levis and Rick Siegel was saying about/to John Albanese. Definitely a pattern here. Unreasonable, violence-promoting disruptors can't be trusted.

   The movement is being rotted out by these people. About a year ago, Kevin Barrett was the last person you would have expected to be disinfo...who's next?

   Posted 17 years ago #
4. Victronix
   Member

   Thanks for this important work. Yes, it is extremely important to expose this internally and for ourselves before any run for public office starts, as he was mentioning the other day. This stuff would all come out then if it didn't now. We don't know what his deal is, but we need to show that we don't tolerate this. Expect blowback from him if he sees this, but feel free to email me if you feel overwhelmed. He's threatened a lawsuit against someone else I know for simply repeating what was already published online. And someone else I know has had to hear worse.

   About a year ago, Kevin Barrett was the last person you would have expected to be disinfo

   Problem is, most still have no idea or are unwilling to accept it. So it's important to take steps like these and expose the problem.

   Posted 17 years ago #
5. Arabesque
   Member

   I found this stuff after a 5-10 minute internet search. I found two articles by accident which advocated violence, and then I wanted to see how many I could find.

   I turned down a radio interview with Mr. Barrett to discuss disinformation (someone recommended me) because I had doubts about his relationship with Disinformation expert Jim Fetzer. This was just before his promotion of "TV fakery" and the release of Ripple Effect

   Posted 17 years ago #
6. Victronix
   Member

   Good choice, and good timing. I know of 3 others who have also declined and are glad. There's also the whole holocaust denial issue too - if you real SLC much you'd have seen most of the coverage. They had a good time with that. And then there's the cover of his book . . . amazing.

   Posted 17 years ago #
7. Arabesque
   Member

   Someone referenced this thread in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Barrett

   "Some activists have also commented on a pattern of public statements by Barrett suggestive of violence toward reporters and journalists"

   Posted 17 years ago #
8. Arabesque
   Member

   "The Capital Times ownership and editorial decision-makers, like those of other mainstream U.S. news outlets, are setting themselves up to be prosecuted as war criminals. By publishing the endless stream of lies that brought us into the Iraqi and Afghan quagmires, without exercising duly diligent skepticism, journalistic decision-makers are following in the footsteps of Joseph Goebbels -- a path that ends at the scaffold." http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/letter/202146

   By the way, the last time I wrote about Barrett, he emailed me asking me to come on his radio show. I said, "No thanks. Sorry." Which I thought was pretty nice, considering. He comes back with: "Guess I'll have to update the Cowards List." With that is a link to a website with "a long list of gutless wonders who have publicly insulted him but chickened out of debate proposals." There, I'm listed as "chatter-blogger Ann Althouse." http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/08/as-example-of...

   Posted 17 years ago #
9. Victronix
   Member

   "Gutless wonders" seems to be a favorite phrase. But focusing on "guts" doesn't really help anything except to antagonize people. Torches at the gates.

   The wikipedia coverage of the holocaust denial issues were up on his page before but got taken down by someone who appeared to be John Leonard, Barrett's publicist.

   Posted 17 years ago #
10. giveback
    

    The last thing any truth movement needs is revenge, whether that is through belittlement or any sort of hate speech, or worse. If anybody is irritated with any claims, as ludicrous and counterproductive as they may sound, deal with that irritation first and deal with it thoroughly. We do not need to compete with anybody, and for certain we do not need to compete with those who peddle in hate and false empowerment.

    I mean, the option is certainly open for hate and revenge, and everybody will most likely have their moments, but that certainly will bring the type of frustration and misery which is the defining aspect of the paradigm which we do not want to support.

    Posted 17 years ago #
11. DBLS
    Inactive

    Bit sick of Barrett now.

    Posted 17 years ago #
12. Rajjpuut
    Member

    "Amen!' to the posting immediately above . . . So help me, when the liberals are in office, this is what you hear from the conservatives. When the conservatives are in office, the liberals go bananas in precisely this way.

    I recommend the movie "Gandhi" to all violence-advocating idiots.

    Truth is bigger and a billion times more important than mere ideology! . . . and all these people advocating vengeance and violence are better than the assumed perpetrators? In what ways? Let the rule of law be respected and let things take their course, but first operate for truth and only truth. To hell with "who's" right; let's only go after "what's right!"

    Posted 17 years ago #
13. Victronix
    Member

    and all these people advocating vengeance and violence are better than the assumed perpetrators?

    You'll note that Barrett doesn't actually advocate violence -- he's very careful about his wording -- he only mentions words suggestive of it and references historical precedent.

    We all know what the purpose is, and most of us react emotionally. That's the reaction he wants. But if you try to call someone on such phrases, they can use linguistics to get out of it.

    He would be the first one to point out the specifics of his wording, I'm sure, to counter any claims that he advocates violence, which is all the worse -- it feels worse when someone plays linguistic games like that to stay within legal limits than someone who just says it outright. Barrett appears to do the same with his views on the various theories and claims, typically saying something like

    "I think there is something to this, but I wouldn't say I support it entirely."

    It's Clinton-esque doublespeak. Personally this kind of stuff really bothers me. The purpose is to never commit to anything but appear to, particularly to both sides.

    The interesting contradiction is that he uses violent language in suggestive ways, but is portrayed as the neutral peacemaker in most cases.

    Posted 17 years ago #
14. Arabesque
    Member

    You'll note that Barrett doesn't actually advocate violence -- he's very careful about his wording -- he only mentions words suggestive of it and references historical precedent.

    What's noticeable besides his wording is the amount of repetition.

    These passages of pseudo-violence do not even sound like Kevin Barrett, and to me, that’s indicative of something.

    If you observe how often he is ridiculed by Screw Loose Change, and others, is the purpose guilt by association?

    Paula Gloria interviews Kevin Barrett http://www.truthring.org/?p=4830

    Barrett says that we should be "tolerable" of other views and be "inclusive" and invite others into our movement. Again, while I agree with this premise, it is a distortion of reality:

    These theories been critiqued, debunked, disproved beyond any reasonable doubt, without rational debate or acknowledgment by the advocates. This means, it is the advocates are not interested in "inclusiveness", since they only appear to be interested in promoting their "agenda theories". If they were interested in “inclusiveness” they would drop their "agenda theories" after they have been decisively debunked. They would answer critique--not ignore it.

    It appears the real reason they don't abandon the "agenda theories", is because the theorists know they have no merit.

    The "agenda" of the "agenda theories" is to discredit the movement. There is no other valuable or redeemable function about them. You mean, we shouldn't reject nonsense, when it has been demonstrated to be nonsense?

    What Kevin Barrett is really saying, is that: “It’s OK to promote widely debunked theories that no one seriously believes”. “It’s OK, if these theories don’t have any merit”.

    If people refuse to debate the merits of the official story, why are the "agenda theorists" any different or better?

    We have to spend our time economically. As Barrett admits, we have boatloads of falsifiable facts, and hard evidence to begin a new serious investigation.

    Because we have such evidence in sizable quantities, we do not need weakly supported speculations; their purpose is only to slow down the Truth movement.

    Posted 17 years ago #
15. Victronix
    Member

    These passages of pseudo-violence do not even sound like Kevin Barrett

    If you ever get private emails from him, you'll realize that they can actually be found in his personal communications also, unfortunately. It's sort of shocking, which is why I'd warned a little bit back about "blowback" (even though they are just 'found' phrases). I've seen extremely nice emails from him also, especially on group emails.

    I think he knows how to push buttons very well - consciously or not - and so engenders fury from people like right-wingers easily, hence the ongoing focus on him. Calling people names like "gutless wonders," rather than talking about the facts of the evidence, will do that.

    The relative frantic-ness of venues like Wikipedia to sandwich us in with nonsense (Lyndon LaRouche is claimed to be a prominent 9/11 researcher by them so that they can dunk us in with him) is an indication of how very important it is to discredit us this way.

    The CIA -- and who knows what else -- has been poking at people's brains for 40 years to figure out how to manipulate what we say and do with an unlimited budget and likely no oversight at all in some cases. Discrediting by association is used because it works.

    The only question is what the agenda really is of the person doing the associating, and we don't have a lot of ways to know that entirely. Often people can be managed. And then the possibility exists that the person simply just really believes these ideas -- that evidence or merit of theory has no value. But then you can look back and see how this person came to get involved, what help they had along the way, etc.

    we do not need weakly supported speculations; their purpose is only to slow down the Truth movement.

    Yes, ultimately the best solution is to collapse all the discussion and debate down to simple truths and hammer them over and over. For example the simple statement that incivility will not be tolerated (not babysitting people with mental issues) in our groups will automatically eliminate some amount of any efforts at "division" by disruption. We don't need to figure out what anyone's deal is if we have simple truths that we adhere to.

    The problem arises when someone is relatively expert at massaging linguistics and emotions to bring people around to their position of compromise. That's the case here.

    Cults develop around some leaders because of their charisma. The ability to emotionally manipulate people is just as powerful as any other tool. When you listen to a powerfully charismatic person, especially if you interact with them, you can be at risk for losing your sense of perspective in general.

    Posted 17 years ago #
16. Rajjpuut
    Member

    I loved the comments about cult psychology from the last paragraph above. So true! I would add that this is largely the thinking (or lack thereof) process for most members of political parties today. Idealizing their own candidate and demonizing the other guys'. Everywhere lots of propaganda passes for a scarcity of real thinking. This is why the Independent voter is king. The two major parties get their robotic compliance from their adherents in the ballot box and it is the so-called "swing" or Independent who prefers the man to the party who ultimately decides things in 90% of issues. Democrats need to decide what GW Bush did so right for two straight elections. Republicans still haven't come to grips with Clinton's awesome legacy of political astuteness that won him the two elections before that. In all four elections, the Independent voter went overwhelmingly for one of the two candidates.

    I think this site would work best as an Independent purveyor of truth rather than as a forum for political agendas.

    Posted 17 years ago #
17. Victronix
    Member

    Independent who prefers the man to the party who ultimately decides things in 90% of issues.

    Actually I think it's the software and other types of fraud that are probably determining much these days around the elections. I went to a meeting of California state officials to review the voting machine problems following the election of Arnold and they were informed that not a single Diebold machine had certified software. Diebold is used all throughout CA, so no one knows what was actually running on those machines.

    I was there, I saw it. It can never be proven (Arnold would have won anyway, but we don't know about state measures), but that's the whole deal with black boxes.

    Between the staged corporate fake debates, the hacking and the rigging of local polling conditions, there's little we can really say about the relevance of "elections" in the US.

    Posted 17 years ago #
18. Arabesque
    Member

    Barrett: http://www.truthring.org/?p=4830

    "Conviviality--We should enjoy each others company even if we don't agree."

    "Morgan [Reynolds] is a Provocateur in the good sense."

    "We can prove it's an inside job Seven Ways from Sunday--so it's not that big a deal... how the illusions of... suicide hijackings were created."

    "The way I study [social interaction] is through dialog... I think we could use a little more conviviality within the Truth movement... one reason for that is that we want people to join us... by reaching out to them in a conviviality way... people will come on board... I think we need to enjoy dialog including with people that we don't agree with... [especially] non-9/11 truth people... I want dialog with [people who support the official story]--dialog is good... this is the key to the politics that we need to practice... we found [9/11 researchers] were getting blackballed by these internet lynch mobs."

    Now read this: http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/621?replies=1...

    It's hard to have "dialog" when you are calling for your opponent to be hanged.

    It's also hard to have "dialog" when certain "theorists" refuse to allow or legitimately respond to critique of their theories.

    Posted 17 years ago #
19. truthmod
    Administrator

    Yeah Arabesque, you've nailed KB with these quotes. His inconsistency, his incitements to violence, and his unflagging support for disinformation should seal his fate as an irrelevant and not-to-be-trusted 9/11 researcher. It's just sad that some people will continue to make apologies and excuses for him because he achieved a sheen of credibility over the last couple years.

    Posted 17 years ago #
20. Victronix
    Member

    Great job!

    Posted 17 years ago #
21. JV
    Member

    Give me a break, Barrett is advocating upholding the Rule of Law. He is not saying that HE will hang the perps, he is drawing attention to what the law of the land specifies as the penalties for mass murder and treason. Additionally he is pointing out that mentioning the Rule of Law is now often punished in the USA.

    If Barrett were really a mean person he would advocate treating the infiltrators within the US Government as "Enemy Combatants", which would mean torture in some place like Abu Graib.

    You guys need to refine your critical thinking. Did you know that endorsing the American Declaration of Independence will also get you put on the "terrorist" watch list?

    Hi again! Back from my day job.

    Posted 17 years ago #
22. Arabesque
    Member

    "He is not saying that HE will hang the perps, he is drawing attention to what the law of the land specifies as the penalties for mass murder and treason."

    Not quite:

    "My response to that was, you know, I think that anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity.

    And then he says:

    "The way I study [social interaction] is through dialog... I think we could use a little more conviviality within the Truth movement... one reason for that is that we want people to join us... by reaching out to them in a conviviality way... people will come on board... I think we need to enjoy dialog including with people that we don't agree with... [especially] non-9/11 truth people... I want dialog with [people who support the official story]--dialog is good... this is the key to the politics that we need to practice..."

    Do you believe that scapegoating journalists for the crimes of 9/11 is just? It certainly isn't favorable to "conviviality" or dialog. If anything it would turn journalists off from what 9/11 truth activists has to say. And that is one function of the 9/11 disinformation movement.

    Posted 17 years ago #
23. Victronix
    Member

    If Barrett were really a mean person he would advocate treating the infiltrators within the US Government as "Enemy Combatants", which would mean torture in some place like Abu Graib.

    I suppose most would choose "the scaffold" over being attacked while naked and hooded by dogs, but we're basically talking about the same thing here -- threats of violence to scare and coerce people.

    The rule of law in the US also says we should electrocute people strapped to a chair until they're dead. But electrocuting people doesn't bring back the dead or stop crime and corruption. It's primarily a political tool and a device to murder black men.

    It may make helpless people feel powerful to talk about violent outcomes of "the rule of law," but that's not our goal here. Our goal is in exposing the truth of 9/11 and bringing justice -- not murder or torture.

    Posted 17 years ago #
24. Victronix
    Member

    a post over on randi -

    "Kevin Barrett contacted me after he heard that Kevin Ryan backed out of a debate opportunity with me. Barrett wanted to know if I was interested in debating him on his radio show, or perhaps in a live debate when he is in New York. In his email to me, he copied a response he had sent to a listener, in which he said that I was complicit in mass murder and a candidate for a war crimes tribunal, with the gallows perhaps in my future. I guess that's his idea of an inducement to debate." http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91656

    Posted 17 years ago #
25. Victronix
    Member

    Related topic, on anti-semitism . . . this needs to get posted somewhere as most don't seem aware of this info.

    Why does both MUJCA and NY911Truth feature a blatant anti-semite on their sites?

    Front page on ny911truth -

    A Dawning Dictatorship? By Captain Eric H. May - Special Military Correspondent 8/6/07 http://www.ny911truth.org/

    And MUJCA hosts Captain Eric May on quite a few pages . . .

    http://www.mujca.com/captain.htm http://www.mujca.com/defazio.htm http://www.mujca.com/usmilitary.htm etc. ( a google search returns 14 entries)

    He sounds reasonable enough on these pages, but apparently no one has read a single other thing the supposed "former" intelligence Captain speculating about numerology has written. One would imagine that the Jewish members of the Muslim Christian Jewish Alliance might take offense, but apparently they haven't noticed either.

    Here's what Captain Eric May is saying everyplace else:

    "In this case it is the controlled media, who use Jewish Cabalism, and the "Bush Boyz" (criminal officials and agents), who use Masonic coding, and they're reporting their handiwork in the Great Plains! . . . I wonder why the Jewish film industry would make a mistake like that, rewriting the plot of reality to convince us -- with a powerful movie -- not to obsess about the prospect of embedded code in the mainstream Jewish news media?" http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/burning.htm

    The simple fact is that these deaths were repressed by a Zionist-dominated professional group, and who can blame me and mine if we make the politically incorrect, but factually correct, point that Jews covered up Christian deaths? http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Toben...

    In the background, the coldest fear of all Jews: their Zionist leaders have manipulated, coaxed and cajoled the Christian mass into something primordial, dreadful and uncontrollable that has turned on the Jews time and time again throughout history, always asserting that all the frustrations, failures and defeats are due to evil Jews. They remember -- or should remember, if they are wise -- that their cerebral superiority to the fanatical folk is most tenuous, and that from being those who call the program to those who suffer the pogrom is their recurrent historic nightmare. . . . It's we moderates, anti-Zionists though not antisemites, who will eventually be swept away by primordial forces, after being labeled compromisers and cowards for obeying the dictates of conscience and Constitution. http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Toben...

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.