End The War In Syria.

yria’s Ambassador Dr. Bashar Ja’afari addressed the United Nations Security Council on February 14, 2018.

***

(Transcript – United Nations website)

Mr. Ja’afari (Syrian Arab Republic):

“Article 2, paragraphs 1, 4 and 7, of the Charter of the United Nations provide for respect for the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members and that all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. Moreover, no provision of the Charter authorizes the United Nations to intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State.”

“Likewise, all 29 resolutions on Syria adopted in the Security Council stress the strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. It is our right today, as it is the right of all peoples of the world who still believe in the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, to wonder what the Council is doing to ensure respect for those purposes and principles wisely established by the founders, with a view to maintaining peace, security and prosperity following the wars and tragedies that they experienced.”

“We in Syria know that our country is not the first victim of violations of Charter provisions and international law by certain members of the Council. However, what Syria has been enduring is the consequence of silence over the course of decades in the face of such violations. What did the Council do when certain Member States undermined the provisions of the Charter and prevented the Palestinian people from exercising their right to creating an independent State, with Jerusalem as its capital? What did the Council do when those Member States themselves violated the provisions of the Charter by invading Iraq? What did the Council do when those same States violated the provisions of the Charter and destroyed Libya?”

“What did the Council do when the same States violated Charter provisions by fuelling terrorism worldwide and called it the jihadi movement? What did the Council do when the same States violated the provisions of the Charter and flagrantly interfered in the internal affairs of Member States and looted their resources, as is the case with several African States? The animosity of certain countries towards Syria derives from the principle of arrogance of power, rather than the rule of law. It reflects disrespect to the purposes and principles of the Charter and a total lack of serious accountability on the part of those who avail themselves of the law of the jungle.”

“I would like to explain the unprecedented global terrorist war that my country has been subjected to over seven years, amid the silence of some, the complicity of some, the indifference of some, overlooking of some and conspiring of others. Certain influential countries on the Council — I mean the United States, the United Kingdom and France — have done all they can to destroy Syria, its people and its political standing, in order to settle scores with my country by manipulating the provisions of the Charter and violating its provisions so as to achieve their special agendas related to interference at the expense of the blood and the fate of the Syrian people.”

“They have exploited the media, and unfortunately some United Nations employees distort reality about what is happening in Syria and to lie to international public opinion regarding the human suffering of Syrian civilians. With regard to the suffering of Syrian civilians, it has been inflicted on them by armed terrorist groups for seven years.”

“Such groups use civilians as human shields, target hospitals and schools and use them as military posts, camps and detention centres for the people they abduct. In the past 20 days, the city of Damascus has been subjected to 1,000 missile and mortar attacks. Some Council members have manipulated the principles of the United Nations Charter and violated its provisions by giving orders to their regional partners to invest all they can in media and materials to support armed terrorist groups, by issuing Wahabi fatwas for the shedding of Syrian blood, by opening their borders to facilitate the entry into Syria of tens of thousands of mercenary terrorists from more than 100 Member States of this Organization, by setting up training camps in neighbouring States and by calling these terrorists moderate Syrian opposition.”

“Today those mercenary terrorists who come from more than 100 states are simply called Syrian opposition. It seems that their DNA has been altered, and now they are just the Syrian moderate opposition. It is no secret that this support to the terrorists has cost those States $137 billion, as confirmed by the former Prime Minister of Qatar. It is also no secret that the former United States Ambassador to Syria confirmed that his country had spent $12 billion over the four years from 2014 to 2017 in order to change the regime in Syria, as officials in Washington, D.C., want to do in Baghdad, Libya, Syria, Venezuela and Iran.”

“WikiLeaks documents have revealed the policies of successive American Administrations and shown that the United States Government has been opposed to my country since the American and British invasion of Iraq. Those countries have manipulated the principles of the Charter and violated its provisions by giving armed terrorist groups toxic chemicals to use against innocent civilians, subsequently manipulating the locales of such incidents and providing the investigation mechanism with concocting false information and fake testimony to accuse the Syrian Government in order to find an excuse to attack it.”

“There are 136 letters in the dossier I hold here, sent to the Member States by the Syrian Government and containing very important information on the acquisition of chemical substances outside Syria by terrorists for their use in Syria. Those chemicals were indeed used in Syria and, as I just said, 136 letters were written about them. The Council has the letters, but only a few of its members were interested in reading them. One of the most important political magazines, the American Newsweek, published an article on 8 February written by Ian Wilkie entitled “Now Mattis Admits There Was No Evidence Assad Used Poison Gas on His People”. The United States Secretary of Defence admits in that article that there is no proof of the use of toxic gas by the Syrian Government against it people, neither in Khan Shaykhun nor in Al-Ghouta in 2013.”

“The French Minister of Defence, Florence Parly, also said yesterday, like her American counterpart, that there is no documented proof of the use of chlorine gas by the Syrian Government. Yet the words of the French Minister did not prevent her President from threatening to stage an aggression against my country, Syria, as the former United States Administration did.”

“These countries have manipulated the principles of the Charter and breached its provisions when they tried to legitimize the recurring attacks perpetrated by the forces of what is called the International Coalition, led by the United States, the most recent of which was this illegitimate coalition’s attack on 8 February on northeastern Deir ez-Zor, against Syrian popular forces fighting terrorist Da’esh. This region, which is 30 kilometres wide and 65 kilometres long, and which was attacked by the Syrian popular forces against Da’esh, is under United States protection. Da’esh, which we defeated in Deir ez-Zor and Albuqmal, left these two cities under American protection and entrenched its presence in the region along the Syrian-Iraqi borders.”

“When the Syrian popular forces attacked Da’esh there, they were shelled by the United States Air Force. This is clearly yet another example of the Coalition’s real mission and the role played by Washington, D.C. in supporting the terrorist organization Da’esh, as it has done in the past, when the United States targeted Syrian Arab Army sites in Jabal Al-Thardah, near Deir ez-Zor, on 17 September 2016, enabling Da’esh to advance and occupy areas in Jabal Al-Thardah. The Coalition has deliberately destroyed 90 per cent of the Syrian city of Raqqa and has failed to uphold its commitment to defusing tens of thousands of mines left behind by Da’esh before abandoning the city and perpetrating terrorist acts under its two umbrellas — the United States, east of the Euphrates, and Turkey, north of Afrin.”

“It is unfortunate that in his statement, to which I listened carefully, the Special Envoy made no mention of the occupation of various areas in my country by the United States and Turkey. He did say that there was a cross-border dispute in Afrin, but did not mention the illegitimate Turkish presence in my country and the attack on the Syrian city of Afrin. These States have manipulated the principles of the Charter and violated its provisions when they stayed silent, along with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, with regard to the repeated attacks by Israel’s occupation forces on areas of the Syrian Arab Republic, the most recent being their act of aggression on 10 February, which my United States colleague has attempted to justify by claiming that it was a response to an Iranian drone’s flight over occupied Palestinian territory.”

“That is not true; it is false and misleading. It is not the first time that we have witnessed Israeli acts of aggression against the sovereignty of my country. Every member of the Council is aware that Israel continued to violate my country’s sovereignty until one of its military planes was brought down by a Syrian rocket over occupied Palestine. Israel has consistently violated my country’s sovereignty — and I would like to remind the Council and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations of that.”

“The Council has been prevented from issuing statements condemning terrorist attacks by military organizations and their launching of more than 1,000 missiles and mortars, most recently targeting residential streets and suburbs, diplomatic missions, infrastructure and churches in Damascus and other cities. Those acts of aggression have resulted in dozens of civilian deaths and hundreds wounded, most of them women and children. These States have manipulated the principles of the Charter and violated its provisions when they talk about what they call besieged areas in eastern Ghouta and the Damascus countryside.”

“They have forgotten that the residents of eastern Ghouta have been besieged from within by armed terrorist groups that are operating from there, using civilians as human shields and attempting to divert humanitarian convoys for the benefit of their supporters or to sell their supplies to desperate people at exorbitant prices, as happened in eastern Aleppo.”

“At the time when the United States first decided unilaterally and illegitimately to intervene militarily in my country, Washington stated that its goal was fighting Da’esh. After that, it changed its mind, saying that it was in Syria to establish permanent military bases for safeguarding the strategic security of the United States and its allies. It later changed its mind once again, saying that the purpose of its presence in Syria was to establish armed militias in opposition to the Syrian Government and to enable them to exploit oil, gas, water and hydrocarbons and other resources in Syria — in other words, they wanted to establish a mini-State.”

“Subsequently, it changed its thinking once more, stating that it would remain in Syria even if Da’esh was defeated. It said the same thing about Iraq, in order to justify the presence of their forces there. It has continued to change its mind, saying that it would leave Syria only if a political settlement was reached and the security of its allies was assured. Most recently, it has stated that it is in Syria to fight Iran, Hizbullah and Russia. It has shifted its nuclear strategy and is considering the possibility of using nuclear weapons. Tomorrow, perhaps, it will tell us that it is in Syria to fight Martians from the Milky Way.”

“The Syrian Government commends the Russian Federation’s efforts, and specifically President Vladimir Putin’s initiative in hosting the Syrian National Dialogue Conference in Sochi, which was yet another demonstration of the fact that the only way to achieve the aims of the political process in Syria is with Syrian oversight and with no foreign interference of any kind. The conference participants represented every sector of Syrian society — political, social, cultural, economic, and more. Two documents were adopted by an overwhelming majority, a final statement and a document calling for the establishment of a constitutional committee.”

“I very much hope that the results that Sochi has produced will not be misinterpreted. The final statement, voted on and amended by the Syrian participants, was adopted unanimously by a broad majority through a democratic vote, based on the procedures established for the conference. It represents the basic pillar of the political process that will produce future dialogue and discussion, rooted in a solution that, assuming no foreign interference, will be entirely Syrian-led. The final statement represents a legitimate foundation for any political process, especially considering that it reflects national principles that have unanimous support in Syria and cannot be questioned — respect for Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and the Syrian people’s right to choose their own political and economic system and to maintain the Syrian Arab Army and armed forces.”

“Given the principle that the Syrian people themselves must determine their future and their Constitution, participants in the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi adopted a resolution to establish a constitutional committee. Consequently, the committee should be established according to the resolution voted on by the Syrians. The resolution identified the tasks of the committee, and the participants in the Congress did not grant the Special Envoy to Syria any tutelage, delegation or authority to establish the constitutional committee. We in Syria are committed to the decision taken by the participants of the Congress. We are not concerned with any committee set up by foreign stakeholders, and will not deal with the results of its discussions or with anything related to it.”

“The constitutional issue is a sovereign one. The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic remains committed to any political course that would end the bloodshed of the Syrian people, preserve my country’s unity and independence, ensure its sovereignty and uphold the principle of the Syrian people to determine their own future through Syrian dialogue. This firm principle has been underscored by all relevant Security Council resolutions on the Syrian crisis.”

“In conclusion, I would like to respond to my colleague of the United States, who called for peace in Syria and the implementation of resolution 2254 (2015), which was approved by her country. The resolution underscores the need to maintain the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of my country, Syria.”

“Given that the resolution, which was approved by Washington, D.C., underscores the need to maintain the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of my country, Syria, then why does the United States have forces in parts of my country? Has the United States of America not violated the very resolution that its delegation voted in favour of in the Council, where it was unanimously adopted?”

“Thank you for your attention.”

***

(Thank you to The Syrian Mission to the United Nations at YouTube)

Advertisements
Featured

European Parliament Considers Global Nuclear Weapons Ban.

n February 7, 2018 in Strasbourg, France, Ms. Beatrice Fihn addressed the European Parliament. Beatrice Fihn is Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, or ICAN – the driving force behind a historic legal accomplishment in July 2017: adoption of an international agreement to ban nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth. For its efforts, ICAN became recognized and honored as recipients of the 2017 Nobel Prize for Peace.

***

(Transcript)

“Distinguished members of the European Parliament: Thank you so much for this invitation to address you here today. The Nobel Committee has seen fit on a few occasions to recognize not just one extraordinary person but a valuable body with awarding them the Nobel Peace Prize, and they did so last year in awarding the coalition of almost 500 organizations that I represent – the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.”

“And they did so in 2012, in recognizing the European Union for your efforts to advance peace and reconciliation, democracy, and human rights. And it is an honor to stand here with the other another Nobel Peace Prize recipient, not as one individual, but a part of a body, a large coalition working to safeguard our planet and our future. And I come to you … before you today, at a time when the need to do so is dire. I come to address one huge challenge before all of us to make every other debate in this chamber irrelevant.”

“I come to talk about the urgent danger of nuclear weapons, and the very real threat they pose to life in Europe. This is a dangerous time. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has just moved the Doomsday Clock to two minutes to midnight, meaning we are closer to Armageddon than at any point in the last 65 years. The war of words between North Korea and the United States threatens to boil over to a war of nuclear weapons, and Russia, China, and all the other nuclear-armed states are embarking on what essentially is a new nuclear arms race.”

“If we keep these weapons forever they will be used by intent, by accident, miscalculation or through a cyber or terrorist attack. If we continue to rely on nuclear weapons their use is a matter of when, not if. If we don’t act our luck will eventually run out. And the immediate effects of a nuclear blast would be devastating : the initial blasts that could level an entire city, the following fires will burn and suck out the oxygen of the remains of that city, and many survivors will die in agony in the days to years to come, through radiation poisoning or cancers.”

“No adequate humanitarian response will be possible, and the effects of radiation on human beings would cause suffering and death decades after the initial explosion. And Europe is not immune to these threats. It could very well be here that the next nuclear weapon will be used. And Europe has a great responsibility to address them through rational coöperation, the very principle or what this chamber was founded on. A start in fact exists within today’s dangerous mix of instability, decreased coöperation and violent rhetoric.”

“And the fact is that the majority of the world’s nuclear weapons are right here in Europe. Four out of the nine nuclear-armed States have littered this continent with the most dangerous weapons ever invented, either on their own soil, that of their allies, and of course patrolling the seas around us. And the world’s attention may currently be turned to the east to the Korean Peninsula, but we are all standing on a ticking bomb right here. The risk of nuclear weapons use is even greater today than at the end of the Cold War, but unlike the Cold War today we face many more nuclear-armed states, terrorists, cyber warfare … ”

“All of this makes us less safe. Along with the many moral and strategic reasons for Europe to pursue peace globally, reduce the nuclear threat beyond the shores, you have a responsibility to lead on this issue, because it affects all your citizens. You must decide whether weapons of mass destruction and luck will remain at the heart of the framework in Europe or if you will lead the way to something new – a security framework worthy of the 21st century. The only nuclear policy that increases security is the only rational and responsible one: the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons.”

“And last week the United States released its new Nuclear Posture Review. It is a violent lurch in the wrong direction, and it outlines a new Trump nuclear doctrine that abandons the work for nuclear disarmament. The settlement, if European allies and others under the nuclear umbrella have long understood it, shows a deliberate strategy to make nuclear weapons easier and more likely to be used. Even as a response to a non-nuclear conflict, it is an all-out attempt to take nuclear weapons out of the silos and on to the battlefields.”

“And the problem does not stop there. Similar threat-filled rhetoric in nuclear doctrines are seen from Russia and China and other nuclear-armed States. We are seeing a very dangerous new nuclear arms race that attempts to blur the lines between nuclear and conventional weapons, and today we are just counting down the days until nuclear weapons will be used again. This is not peace through strength. This is instability through terror. It is a luck-based security policy, and that is simply not good enough. Are you going to support the new Trump nuclear doctrine, join the thinking of Russia and North Korea, cheer on a new nuclear arms race … or are you going to support the [uncertain word … “warm”?] work for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons?”

“You cannot do both. This is the choice before each member of this European Union: the rapid escalation of a new nuclear security framework, one that lowers the threshold for nuclear weapons use and raises the likelihood of that happening, – or a rejection of the threats of nuclear war in favor of a new security framework predicated on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, just like we have prohibited other weapons of mass destruction. And we are looking to the EU for leadership in this. The world is looking to the EU for leadership on this. Who else on the global stage today will be the responsible actor ? Who else can we look to, to uphold human rights humanitarian law and the protection of civilians?”

“And the EU together with a high representative Federica Mogherini has been extremely effective in brokering an agreement with Iran, and this very body overwhelmingly in 2016 voted to support our collective work towards the nuclear bomb treaty. All over the objections of powerful interests, one hundred and twenty-two (122) nations adopted the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons last July, and EU member states like Austria, Ireland, Sweden showed great leadership throughout the negotiations. And we need all European states to show that leadership now.”

“There is a clear pathway for you to do so. The treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons is a political means to a nuclear weapons-free world, and now we need political leadership. All EU member states should join the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. And this is entirely consistent with those obligations some EU members have through their collective defense in NATO. And nothing in the North Atlantic treaty signed EU states up to a nuclear instability doctrine based on luck and high risk. Nothing in our collective defense should force us to participate in using nuclear weapons on civilians; that is the opposite of collective security.”

“The security interest of Europe is not served by a new nuclear arms race, one that takes nuclear weapons onto the battlefield and threatens to end us all. We must move towards disarmament, not destruction. Threatening to use weapons of mass destruction to indiscriminately slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilian runs counter to the humanitarian values and moral leadership of this body and all of Europe. As the hands of the Doomsday Clock are being wound in the wrong direction, Europe must urgently take a stand. Show the world that Europe leads on standing up for the principles of democracy, human rights and collective security.”

“And that first step can happen today. Go back to your governments and urge them to join the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, to join the community of nations who uphold the rule of law and laws of war, and in doing so reject the outdated 20th century security framework that sits on an unhealthy obsession with Cold War death relics. And this body, the European Parliament, is more important than ever. At such a critical moment it is vital that this body speak forcefully that it has done in the past in support of disarmament and non-proliferation, and in particular for the nuclear ban treaty.”

“And I urge you to turn those words into action by using the unique power of the European Parliament to promote policy in line with the EU values. Where there is uncertainty we should work towards understanding and consensus. And this is the process parliamentarians in countries like Italy and Norway are undergoing, investigating what the nuclear ban treaty will mean for their wider policy and security. And this body should follow suit. The EU non-proliferation consortium has provided invaluable guidance on implementation of, for example, the prohibition on biological weapons.”

“And members of the European Parliament should request the non-proliferation consortium to examine how member states can join the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. And the European Parliament can back up your support for a policy with funding. This body should use its budgetary discretion to support civil society efforts for a nuclear weapons free world – an implementation of the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.”

“A highlight of this treaty was a close working relationship between political leaders and civil society. So the European Parliament should step up and be firm and strengthen its union with civil society. And the members in this room can, and should swiftly, take these steps, rejecting the trend to increase the discord and dangerous nuclear posturing, and supporting disarmament through the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.”

“It is time for Europe to stand against this move towards nuclear disaster, stand against the Trump doctrine, stand against developments of more usable nuclear weapons, stand against the nuclear saber-rattling from all sides, and stand against the threatening to use weapons of mass destruction on civilians as an acceptable foreign policy.”

“It is your responsibility to protect your people against the use of nuclear weapons. So stand up for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons.”

“Thank you.”

***

(Thank you to Frederick Moulin at YouTube)

Harold Pinter in 2005 Nobel Address: The US “Brutal, Indifferent, Scornful” Manipulator of Truth

When we look into a mirror we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimeter and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror – for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us.

I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.

If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us – the dignity of man.

OffGuardian

In 2005, Harold Pinter, British playwright, screenwriter and actor, who famously refused a knighthood in the 1990s, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. This is his Nobel address. It’s to his eternal credit that he used this platform, not for self-promotion, but to draw attention to what he saw as vital questions of truth and ethics, life and death in the geopolitical world

Transcript

In 1958 I wrote the following:

There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.

I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What…

View original post 4,901 more words

MLK, JFK, RFK, 9/11 And More: Dr. William Pepper And Dr. Kevin Barrett.

Attorney Dr. William Pepper talked to radio show host Dr. Kevin Barrett in January 2017 on the murders of Martin Luther King Jr., President John Kennedy and his brother Robert Kennedy, 9/11, Libya, the media … and much, much more.

***

Dr Kevin Barrett:  Welcome to Truth Jihad Radio, the radio show that’s actually an all-out struggle for truth.  (Editor’s note: Dr. Kevin Barrett also co-hosts “False Flag Weekly News”NoLiesRadio Channel, on YouTube) I’m Kevin Barrett, bringing on great guests talking about the most important stories that you’re not likely to hear about in the mainstream media.  One of the most important stories in the history of the last century is the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. And we have one man, more than anyone else, to thank for getting the truth about that incredibly important event out to the world. And that man is my guest William Pepper.  William Pepper has been on this case for decades.  He was a friend of Dr. King. It’s a long story, admirably summarized in his new book The Plot to Kill King, which is an update of his previous two books, Act of State, and…what was the first one?

Dr. William Pepper:  Orders to Kill.

Dr Kevin Barrett:  Orders to Kill.  Yeah, I have a copy.  Milwaukee Public Library, discard copy of that.  Anyway, this new book, The Plot to Kill King, is pretty much a definitive statement. It’s a brilliant piece of work, one of the all-time great historical pieces of detective work.  So it’s an honor to have William Pepper on the show.  Welcome, Bill. How are you?

Dr. William Pepper:  Thank you. Thank you, Kevin.  I’m fine. I’m pleased to be with you.

Dr Kevin Barrett: It’s quite amazing, isn’t it, when we start looking beneath the surface of some of these history-changing events, what we find crawling around underneath.

Dr. William Pepper:  It certainly is.  In fact, this work and the Robert Kennedy one, which I agreed to represent Sirhan on, has made me cognizant of the fact that political assassination has been one of the major change agents throughout all of history—to such an extent that I think I’ll work on an analysis of political assassinations in history.  I’m staggered by the social, economic, and political, changes that have resulted from the removal of leaders and dissidents at various times in human history going back, of course, well before the Crucifixion of Christ.  So it’s worth considering in a broader scope. And of course in our lifetimes we’ve experienced a number of assassinations.  The killing of Martin Luther King was a seminal event in terms of a negative impact of our way of life.

Dr Kevin Barrett:  When I was being attacked by the mainstream media as a 9/11 truth researcher and soon to be ex-professor, I was attacked partly for having mentioned that I thought these political assassinations of the ‘60’s, notably the Kennedys and Dr. King, were obviously not done by lone nuts as we were told.  I responded to their attacks by saying something like:

“Well, call me a ‘conspiracy theorist,’ but I don’t think Julius Caesar was stabbed by a lone nut.”

It’s obvious that there are so many motives for power players to kill people in political assassinations. And yet we have this orthodoxy that it’s always a lone nut.  And even people as smart as Noam Chomsky tell us: “Oh, it doesn’t really matter whether the Kennedys or King or anybody like that lives or dies.  It’s all a big distraction and we should just accept the official story.” And he says similarly idiotic things about 9/11 and other false flags.  How could someone like Chomsky not get it?

Dr. William Pepper:  Well, I think Chomsky gets it.  I think he just refuses to acknowledge it. And whatever his particular reasons are, he just will not deal with the truth when it comes to certain issues.  Political assassination is one.  I’ve had more than one conversation with him and it’s been somewhat embarrassing, because he clearly knows more than he’s willing to admit, for whatever reason.  He and a lot of left thinkers go only so far.  And activists even.  And broadcasters and political figures also go just so far, and they won’t go any further, and that’s a matter of great frustration. Because you then are coming up against (censorship) not only in the mainstream media but also in the progressive media, which itself is serving the cause of injustice.

Dr Kevin Barrett:  Well, and I think there might be a number of reasons for that.  One of them is that people in supposed opposition groups can actually have their career skids greased by cooperating with the authorities and the bad guys.  You have some pretty awful information in your book about heroes of the left like Jesse Jackson and Ralph Abernathy.  These people are seen as dissidents, but they got their public position by cooperating nefariously with the other side. And I imagine that there’s quite a lot of that in the so-called alternative media.

Dr. William Pepper:  Yeah.  I think that’s certainly the case. And the cooperation I think is in many ways worse, and more deceitful, because a lot of these people pretend to be something they’re not. They serve the existing ruling class and the ruling forces in a much more insidious way than the mainstream media does.  So that’s difficult to overcome. And that’s why people like you, Kevin, and the work that you do and the broadcasting that you do, is in many ways a voice in the wilderness—and sometimes in the darkness.  But it’s very important to keep your work going with respect to these events.

Continue reading “MLK, JFK, RFK, 9/11 And More: Dr. William Pepper And Dr. Kevin Barrett.”