Kevin Barrett and his PR Manager Slander 911blogger, Truthaction, and 9/11 Activists
Kevin Barrett is running for Congress on a “9/11 truth” platform. His public relations manager (PR) is Rolf Lindgren, who posts at 911blogger.com as Galileo. In a reply to prominent 9/11 activist and blogger Jon Gold, Lindgren wrote on 911blogger:
“Dr. Barrett likes to take the high road, and stay out of catfights between feuding activists, especially in a public forum. Catfights make bad impressions on newbies.”
What “catfight” was Lindgren referring to? He was speaking about the Kennebunkport Warning controversy in which Cindy Sheehan was called a “wretched individual” and 9/11 activists were slandered and attacked for reporting on the controversy.
Lindgren’s statement is misleading for several reasons. First of all, the Kennebunkport Warning controversy was not a “catfight”, since the attacks were almost entirely one-sided as I prolifically documented. This statement is also inaccurate since Mr. Barrett participated in the slander. In other words, Barrett was a part of the controversy. After adding his signature to the Kennebunkport Warning, Barrett said the following about Cindy Sheehan and other anti-war activists:
“But Tarpley’s ill-considered accusation is nothing next to the mendacious fraud accusations put forth by the four regretful signatories… Frankly, if I were one of the Warning’s organizers, I would be strongly considering legal action. The possibility of cointelpro involvement in this affair is not to be dismissed. It is hard to imagine how anyone could be so stupidly unethical as to make transparently false accusations of forgery without some form of pressure having been applied. That pressure could come from threats; or, more likely, from “nice antiwar friends” from the foundation-funded pseudo-left… the kind of people professional 9/11 coverup agent Chip Berlet hangs out with. Cindi Sheehan and her foundation-funded fake-peace-movement “friends” are easy targets for this kind of manipulation by professional psy-oppers. Wake up, Cindi! Anyone who takes foundation money is on the CIA payroll. The foundation-funded “left” magazines, radio shows, and organizations are CIA propaganda outlets. It really IS that simple.”
(Note: For the record, the current version of this article was edited to remove these attacks after 9/11 activists complained, but the screenshot I have attached proves that Barrett made these statements.)
Ironically, as oilempire.us has pointed out, Barrett himself was awarded a State Department Grant. As I have documented, virtually all of the slander and attacks like the example above came from Webster Tarpley and signers of the Warning in response to 9/11 activists reporting the attacks against Cindy Sheehan and others. For more than a month, this slander continued, which included the commisioning of a professional quality cartoon.
Now, as I have repeatedly pointed out, reporting attacks is not an attack. If I am a reporter, and I report that person X is attacking person Y, I am not making an “attack” against person X, am I? Conflating critique or criticism with ad-hominem is a straw-man. Recently, Barrett has further slandered 9/11 activists in relation to this controversy on his radio show:
“I know Tarpley was being sort of tongue in cheek [calling 9/11 truth activists Michael Wolsey, Cosmos, Arabesque, and Col. Jenny Sparks COINTELPRO agents]… but no. 1 that’s just not a not a smart thing to do [Barrett proceeds to ignore his own good advice]–no. 2 even though I agree that two of the four people he named—that is the ones who had aliases who are afraid to operate under their own names–[disgusted voice] these people are obviously frauds and plants, bogus.
Hill: “They’re children playing with computers”.
Barrett: Maybe that’s it. I don’t know, those people I have no use for, whatever Webster wants to say about them I happily endorse. The people with real names that he called out were actually good people. Maybe misguided on this particular issue… throwing them in with these two false names–COINTELPRO people who are intelligence fronts or idiots, whoever they are was completely mad. It was really unfair to those two real human beings. I told him so, I gave him a really hard time after that.”
Remember, Barrett’s PR manager claimed that he did not take a side in the controversy and that he did not involve himself in “catfights”. This is demonstrably false, since as you can see he is accusing me of being a COINTELPRO operative on his radio show without any evidence.
As a short side note, notice that Barrett says that activists were “misguided” about the controversy. The real issue–the one that Barrett and others continuously evade is that we said: personal attacks against activists are wrong and divisive. How can anyone say with a straight face that we are “misguided” about this issue–the only issue that we argued was most relevant in regards to the controversy. It continuously amazes me how this simple issue is continuously re-framed and avoided.
Now as if this was not enough, Mr. Barrett made a “call for unity” shortly before his recent attacks on 9/11 activists. As I have argued all along, attacks on activists are divisive and destructive. However, it is very difficult to have “unity” with individuals who insist on attacking other activists. This should be obvious. Keeping the above “call for unity” in mind, Barrett is now slandering 911blogger as an “Islamophobic” site.
“…I am dismayed that… 911blogger.com, has continued its recent policy of silencing and expelling Muslims and those with views approximating those of the global Muslim mainstream…
Sadly, I have to wonder whether [911blogger may be Islamophobic]. A few months ago, the only two Muslim regular posters at 911blogger, myself and John Leonard of Progressive Press, were banned from 911blogger, and the excuses for the banning in both cases were transparently ridiculous. ([Reprehensor], who is now the sole Decider at 911blogger, claimed he was banning me because I had invited John Lear, a highly qualified pilot with some odd views, on my radio show. But Lear had already been on other 9/11-oriented shows run by non-Muslims, such as Rob Balsamo’s, without any complaints from Allan.)
[note by Arabesque: According to Reprehensor “John Leonard has not been banned from [911blogger]“. However, 911blogger no longer accepts paid ads from Leonard, says Reprehensor.]
Meanwhile those who promote the ridiculous LIHOP “blame Pakistan” and “blame the Saudis” Islamophobic hang-outs have been endlessly promoted at [Reprehensor]’s new version of 911blogger; evidence implicating Israel and Zionists is off-limits; and people like Elias Davidsson, the son of Nazi holocaust survivors who proves there were no Muslim hijackers, and Jay Kolar, whose work supports Davidsson, are downplayed or ignored…while Muslim account-holders and those who share their perspectives are expelled. It is as if [Reprehensor] and company are desperately trying to save the “blame the Muslims” core of the 9/11 psy-op, even after the official story has unraveled.
American society is so permeated with double-standards, so drenched in an ideology of Jewish superiority and Muslim inferiority, that people like [Reprehenser] of 911blogger can effectively ban all Muslims and Muslim-friendly perspectives and not only get away with it, but perhaps not even fully understand what they’re doing. Islamophobia has become like the air we breathe — toxic, omnipresent, and unremarked-on.”
Why is Barrett making “calls for unity” with divisive activists like Jim Fetzer, but spreading lies that 911blogger is an “Islamophobic” site, that he was banned for “being a Muslim”, that 9/11 blogger is “silencing Mulsim-friendly perspectives”, and that 9/11 activists Arabesque and Col. Jenny Sparks are “COINTELPRO operatives”? These and other charges are false. On what basis is Kevin Barrett attacking myself as a “COINTELPRO” agent? Probably, in response to the fact I wrote an article about him. The entire article is essentially a collection of direct quotations by Kevin Barrett. Is this the first time that Barrett has made accusations against someone for quoting his own words? In fact, it is not. According to the respected 9/11 research website wtc7.net:
“MUJCA.com is apparently mostly the work Kevin Barrett. Before August 2007, 9-11 Research expressed concerns about Barrett’s apparent sympathy with Holocaust deniers, based on previously published conversations with the OilEmpire.us webmaster archived here. However, we removed quotations from that conversation after Barrett wrote to us to express his belief that our excerpt of it was libelous. Barrett’s public statements suggestive of violence are in stark contrast with 9-11 Research’s policy stressing civility, verifiable information, and rational analysis. In 2007 Barrett’s support for 9/11 junk science presented as 9/11 Truth typified by postings on James Fetzer’s website became increasingly obvious.”
That’s right: Apparently, quoting the words of Kevin Barrett is now evidence of “libel” or that you are a “COINTELPRO agent”. And it appears that Lindgren, his PR manager (who obviously has a very difficult job) isn’t above slander or “cat fights” either: he attacked activists at truthaction.org as “bat shit insane” in response to criticism of Kevin Barrett.
Again and again we return to what I think is the core issue: Attacking activists is wrong and divisive. Criticizing Mr. Barrett and others for their divisive statements and actions is not an attack. I’ll repeat myself: reporting attacks are not the same as making an attack.
Mr. Barrett is running for Congress while representing the 9/11 truth movement. I believe that the 9/11 truth movement should demand responsible behavior from anyone who claims to represent it, and that if we don’t demand it we are going to be burned and we are going to be discredited. Remaining silent about slander and damaging behavior that affects the movement as a whole is among the most damaging and serious problems that the 9/11 movement faces. Pretending that there is not an issue allows any serious problems to continue unaddressed and for the movement to be continuously misrepresented and discredited.