Kevin Barrett

Anti-American poster in Beijing following the U.S.
bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade

“They must really think we're stupid.” That is what people all over the world are saying about the American government and media's portrayal of world events.

Several weeks ago, an interviewer said to Russian President Putin: "NATO claims the missile shield was not built against you but against Iran." Putin broke out laughing. When the laughter finally subsided, Putin said: "You really make me laugh. God bless you because it’s almost time to finish the day… indeed it’s already time to go to sleep. At least I get home in good humor."

No sane person could seriously assert that NATO's missile shield circling Russia is intended to protect the West from Iran. Yet, that is exactly what NATO - the imperial American occupation army in Europe - tells the world. How stupid do they think we are?

Governments lie. Imperial governments construct vast empires of lies. But in the past, most official lies carried at least a thin veneer of plausibility. Today, the US government and its media echo chamber do not seem to care whether their lies are even slightly credible.

The Ukraine crisis has been a non-stop festival of American lies, each one more ridiculous than the last.

More »

Kevin Barrett

Russian President Vladimir Putin with Patriarch Kirill I of
Moscow (also Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church)

In the wake of Crimea's independence referendum, Hillary Clinton says Russian President Putin is a "new Hitler." Zbigniew Brezezinski, former National Security Advisor agrees, calling Putin not just another Hitler, but also a thug, a menace, a Mafia gangster, and a Mussolini. The Western mainstream media echoes this childish name-calling.

Why is the whole Western foreign policy establishment so afraid of Putin?

Because Putin is standing up against Western aggression – not only in Ukraine, but also in Syria and Iran. Ongoing Western attempts to destabilize these and other countries are just the most recent examples of a decades-old pattern of aggression. The long-term goal: Total destruction of traditional nations and values, and the creation of a New World Order global dictatorship.

Since the 1953 CIA-MI6 coup in Iran, the West has been using the same formula to overthrow legitimate but uncooperative leaders: First, sabotage the country's economy. Then bribe corrupt military officers and thugs and pay rent-a-mobs to create chaos in the streets. Next (this step is optional) incite violence by paying snipers to fire into crowds – and maybe set off some bombs. Finally, send the corrupt military units and gangsters to overthrow the target nation's legitimate leader, murder or imprison his supporters, install a Western puppet in his place – and announce that "order has been restored."

The CIA did it to Iran's democratically-elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953, to Indonesia's President Sukarno in 1965, and to Chile's Prime Minister Allende on September 11th, 1973. They did the same thing to Ukraine's legitimate president, Viktor Yanukovych, a few weeks ago. Neocon regime-change apparatchik Victoria Nuland (The assistant US secretary of state,) got caught admitting that the US had spent five billion dollars to overthrow Ukraine's democratically-elected government; and EU Foreign Affairs Chief Catherine Ashton was heard on tape discussing the "news" that the Maidan Square snipers were part of the US-sponsored coup.

More »

Kevin Barrett

This revolution – the overthrow of the global oligarchy – is the only revolution that matters.

Since the days of President Woodrow Wilson – that is, for roughly 100 years – the USA has been on a self-styled crusade to “make the world safe for democracy.” Colossal wars, hot and cold, were fought against German Kaisers and Führers, Russian communists, and Third World nationalists. The American people were told they were “defending democracy.”

Americans slaughtered 3.5 million Vietnamese, and nearly another million Cambodians, to “defend democracy” in Southeast Asia. They murdered millions of Iraqis through wars and sanctions to “defend democracy” in the Middle East. According to André Vltchek and Noam Chomsky's book On Western Terrorism, the US government has murdered between 55 and 60 million people since World War II in wars and interventions all over the world. If we believe the imperial propagandists, this American Holocaust has been one big defense of democracy.

But now, on the eve of the 100th anniversary of World War I, the US has embarked on a new crusade – to make the world UNSAFE for democracy.

In Ukraine, Venezuela, and Thailand, the US is spending billions of dollars to unconstitutionally eject democratically-elected governments. In Palestine, the US has been trying to overthrow the democratically-elected Hamas government ever since it came to power. In Egypt, the US – under Zionist pressure – recently overthrew the only genuinely democratic government in 5,000 years of recorded history. In Syria, the US insists that the people must not be given the opportunity to re-elect Assad, no matter how many international observers and safeguards ensure honest elections. And in Turkey, the US is undermining the democratically-elected Prime Minister Erdogan in favor of CIA puppet Fethullah Gulen. Taking the long view, the US is working patiently to destroy democracy in Iran, Russia, and Latin America. — Why does the US government hate democracy?

More »

Kevin Barrett

Will a Zionist apocalypse erupt during the coming two years?

Some Zionists seem to think so. They are predicting that an unusual series of lunar eclipses or “blood moons” expected in 2014 and 2015 augurs war and disaster on an epic scale.

One Zionist website warns: “It cannot be regarded as coincidence that all four blood moons of 2014/15 occur on religious festivals of Israel, together with two eclipses of the sun also on important days in 2015...According to NASA - Four 'blood-red' TOTAL lunar eclipses WILL fall again on Passover and Sukkoth in 2014 and 2015… the same back-to-back occurrences at the time of 1492, 1948 and 1967” (sic).

Meaning? “The events may involve war in the Middle East and a financial crisis around the world that will affect the land of Israel or the Jewish elite in New York City.”

These blood-moonbat Zionists think that 2014 or 2015 will go down in history alongside 1492 (the year that Jews, along with Muslims, were expelled from Spain), 1948 (the creation of the Zionist entity) and 1967 (the Zionist invasion and occupation of Jerusalem).

Citing a satanic Rothschild-financed hoax, the so-called Scofield Bible, these Zionists hope that 2014 or 2015 will bring a major Middle East war that will enable the Zionists to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, demolish the al-Aqsa mosque, build a Zionist temple on the ruins of the mosque, and consecrate it with blood sacrifices – beginning with the slaughter of a pink heifer. Are the Zionists insane? – Obviously.

More »

Kevin Barrett

Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Minister Ariel Sharon

Ariel Sharon embodied the pure, unmitigated evil of Zionism. He was a war criminal, a terrorist, a mass murderer, a torturer, a rapist. The French term “genocidaire” also applies.

But Sharon did have one redeeming quality: He occasionally told the awful truth about himself and his country. During the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Sharon vented his real feelings in public. In a Hebrew-language interview with Israeli writer Amos Oz, Sharon said:

“Even today I volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug out from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up a few synagogues, I don’t care. And I don’t mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal… What your kind doesn't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it.”

More »

Kevin Barrett

Why do Americans let people with declared loyalty to a foreign country overrun top positions in the US government?

The United States of America is supposed to be a democratic republic. Under its Constitution, the Congress decides whether to go to war, and the President serves as commander-in-chief.

Today, with nearly 1,000 military bases around the world, the USA looks more like an empire than a republic. But who is the emperor? Is the USA ruled by an “imperial presidency”? Or is the real emperor of America enthroned in Tel Aviv?

A bill introduced in the US Senate by Chuck Schumer (D-NY), entitled the “Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013,” formally turns over American war powers to the State of Israel and its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

According to a leading American Iran expert, Columbia University professor Gary Sick, “the bill outsources any decision about resort to military action to the government of Israel, by committing the United States in advance to support any military action by Israel.

That effectively gives Netanyahu the war powers of both the US Congress and the US president. In effect, it makes Netanyahu emperor of the USA, empowered to lead America into any war he wants at the time and place of his choosing.

More »

Kevin Barrett

Is the New World Order crumbling before our eyes? Are people everywhere rising up against the all-seeing-eye of “total information awareness”?

The Snowden-triggered NSA spy scandals have thrown a monkey wrench into US-NATO plans for the world empire. Apparently, the world's seven billion people do not want their every email stolen and stored, every phone call wiretapped and recorded, every pore on every face under the permanent scrutiny of spy satellites ... and every world leader blackmailed and controlled.

Last Monday and Tuesday, November 4th and 5th, rallies were held around the world unmasking the global surveillance state. The “Million Mask March” brought together supporters of Anonymous, Wikileaks, Occupy, Oath Keepers, whistleblowers, and hacktivists in more than 430 locations around the world.

The day before, Monday, November 4th, all across Iran, people were rallying to commemorate the 1979 seizure of the US Embassy, otherwise known as “the Den of Espionage.”

The Iranians - who have been rallying against the “Den of Espionage” since 1979 - are ahead of their time. Today, 34 years after the US embassy seizure, the whole world is following in their footsteps and protesting against American spying.

Western corporate media, whose mission is keeping people ignorant and confused, are peddling lies and half-truths about these events. Big media tells us the students who seized the US embassy in Iran were scary-looking fanatics, as depicted in the film Argo. And big media will also portray the Million Mask March as a frightening, confusing phenomenon. - But what were these protests really all about?

More »

Kevin Barrett

There is no worse place to be a dissident than in the USA.

In many countries, people who cross the line in opposing the government risk incarceration, torture, or murder.

Until recently, it was hard for American dissidents to cross that line. If they wanted to get arrested for saying something subversive, mere ideas weren't enough; they would have to actually threaten to physically harm the President or another high official.

But the post-9/11 USA is no longer a beacon of human rights. As former President Jimmy Carter recently wrote in the New York Times, “The United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.” In his article, Carter points out that top US officials are now openly targeting US citizens for political assassination, “disappearance,” unlimited surveillance, and other forms of gross human rights abuse.

Since we now know that a secret National Security committee is ordering the murder of American citizens, and since we know the CIA has the power to easily simulate deaths from illness and accident, we might as well assume that every time a dissident dies unexpectedly, he or she has been murdered by the US government.

Consider the chilling words of Obama's information czar Cass Sunstein, who openly advocates that the US government should “disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories.” Sunstein's article “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures” argues that “conspiracy theories” (by which he means the 9/11 truth movement) are so dangerous that the government should “cognitively infiltrate” 9/11 truth groups, “disable” those who spread these ideas, and possibly even make the ideas illegal.

More »

Kourosh Ziabari

Just a few days ago, Google removed the name of 'Persian Gulf' from its online maps and Google Earth plans. This action is considered to be a politically motivated plot directed by the CIA to undermine and demoralize Iranian people and weaken their position in the international community. Unquestionably, it's unlawful to distort or change geographical names for political purposes.

To Iranians, 'Persian Gulf' is not simply a name referring to a geographical region on the world map. To Iranians, the name of 'Persian Gulf' is interwoven with a sense of national dignity and honor which makes them a united and powerful troupe against the relentless attacks of the enemy. The name of 'Persian Gulf' resembles a feeling of pride and decorum for them which cannot be replaced by any other gift or reward. It reminds them of the impressive days when the flag of ancient Persian Empire honorably fluttered and waved in the sky and there was no other competitor to supersede this mighty empire.

Of course Iranians' attachment to 'Persian Gulf' and the cultural heritage which it carries does not emanate from blind nationalistic sentiments. Iranians know well that today, they are the representative of a greater, broader union that is the Islamic Ummah. They know that it's with the blessing of Islam that they can still take pride on being an unrivaled superpower in such a tumultuous and restless region as the Middle East. However, Iranians are extremely sensitive about those vicious, brutal powers who intend to undermine their national honor and solidarity by encroaching on their national heritage, including the [name of] 'Persian Gulf'.

More »

Roger Tucker

The recent open letter Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon, apparently written by Ali Abunimah, has come as a shock to many people, including yours truly. Not only have the Zionists colonized Palestine and subjected them to a permanent campaign of genocide, but as anyone who has been paying attention knows, they have colonized the Western democracies, turning them into obedient puppets. Now it appears that they have also colonized the Palestine Solidarity movement.

At the end of this essay are links to a number of responses supporting Atzmon and what he stands for. These cover the ground pretty well, but I’d like to add a critical look at the language used by Abunimah et al and some of the notions underlying such terminology. I’ll start with the title itself, which begins with the curious phrase “Granting No Quarter.” The phrase is familiar to anyone who has read books or seen films based on British naval warfare set in the 18th or early 19th centuries. - this is as extreme as it gets. This from a group of mostly Palestinian supporters of the Palestinian struggle against Israel in opposition to another such supporter. That is sufficiently mind-boggling in itself, but Ali Abunimah, and I would assume at least some of his fellow signatories, are also supporters of One Democratic State as the solution to the basic conflict in the Middle East, as is Atzmon. Some fundamental and portentous difference, beyond a mere dispute about strategy or tactics, must be responsible for such a total and uncompromising attack on a seemingly close ally. It allows for no debate, no compromise – no quarter offered or accepted.

Some observers have implied that Ali & Co. have actually gone over to the enemy, or may have been Zionist agents from day one, and that the Jewish members of these Solidarity groups are acting as their handlers. For the sake of argument, I’m going to assume that is not so, that they are perfectly sincere in considering themselves loyal to the Palestinian cause as they conceive it. Looking at the signatories of the Letter we find some successful academics, Abunimah and Massad being the most prominent. They have prospered as unofficially sanctioned spokesmen for the Palestinian cause in the US and have no incentive to rock the boat. If they presented any perceived danger to tribal Jewry, they would likely find themselves on the street, as has happened to a number of academics, many of them Jewish, who have dared to challenge the predominant Jewish narrative. This points to a simple motivation based on economic and professional self-interest, but I believe there’s more to it than that.

More »