“He called the judge an ASS-hole! Can you believe it? My crazy husband called the judge an ASSSSSS-hole!”
My wife spent yesterday afternoon calling and Skyping her friends and family, excoriating my poor judgment in posting an over-the-top letter to the judge who sentenced Tarek Mehanna to 17 years in prison. She thought it was so unprofessional, so excessive, that it damaged my credibility and maybe even Tarek Mehanna’s case.
Compared to her, the pair of Federal Marshals who visited us yesterday offered relatively mild literary criticism.
They asked me why I wrote it and what did it mean. After a brief exposition of 9/11 truth, I explained the concept of the Truth Jihad: An all-out serio-comic assault on the post-9/11-inside-job status quo: Simultaneously serious as a heart attack, in that it is a real jihad, an all-out effort or struggle for truth in which I am not averse to being martyred; and comic, in that I am making fun of myself as a “crazy, over-the-top truth jihadi” knowing that this is how it looks from the perspective of the average American. Usually, I explained, my stuff works at both the serious and humorous levels at once.
The Marshals opined that they didn’t see much humor in the diatribe I sent to Judge O’Toole.
I admitted they had a point.
I explained that this particular piece sacrificed humor for shock value. It attempts to communicate raw, visceral outrage about a horrendous miscarriage of justice. And in disseminating outrage over the Mehanna verdict, in an admittedly hyperbolic way, I was hoping to help people overcome the fear that prevents them from rising up and putting an end to such injustices. By setting an example as someone so insanely fearless that they’ll address a federal judge in such fashion, I’m hoping that others will (a) take notice, if only for entertainment value, and (b) be shamed into overcoming their own fear, and take some kind of action – such as demonstrating or writing less-excessive letters – to free Tarek Mehanna.
The Marshals understood, but they were concerned about possible blowback. What if some idiot went and physically attacked the judge, claiming that I had inspired them?
I admitted that, once again, they had a point. While most of my readers “get” what I do, and realize that I’m not advocating physical attacks on anyone, there are indeed plenty of foolish and/or crazy people out there. Since I became a “famous conspiracy theorist” I get letters from crazy people on a regular basis. I explained to the Marshals that while most of the people who don’t understand my work choose to just hate me, it was conceivable, though extremely unlikely, that some “Barrett fan” might act stupidly; or perhaps the bad guys might even stage some kind of a false-flag event, sending a mind-controlled patsy after the judge and blaming me for it.
The Marshals read the final paragraph of my letter, saying that if the judge comes into my presence I’ll do my best to get him citizen-arrested, tried, convicted, and hanged (or shown mercy). They pointed out that it could be interpreted as a threat to attack the judge under cover of “citizens’ arrest.”
Yet another good point. I explained that I had no intention of attacking or harming this judge, or anyone else. But maybe I should do something to make that clear.
So now, the day after my little chat with the Marshals, I am sending another letter to Judge O’Toole.
Dear Judge O’Toole,
I am writing to assure you that I have no intention of attacking or even detaining you, much less trying to lynch you. I apologize for sending you ill-chosen words that could be misinterpreted along those lines.
The outrage expressed in my letter was not directed entirely at you, but at the whole post-9/11 annihilation of justice, the rule of law, and especially the Bill of Rights in our country. A 17-year sentence for Constitutionally-protected free speech, on a conviction obtained purely on the basis of the defendant’s religion, seems to me so excessive that it demands an equally-excessive response. But again, it isn’t about you personally. It’s about the rule of law. And my response to you flirts with and mirrors a kind of anarchic horror at the ongoing breakdown of concepts of justice, freedom, republican governance, constitutionality, and the rule of law. In so doing, it wanders into territory that could be misinterpreted, as I was reminded yesterday by my wife and two Federal Marshals.
In considering future cases, I do hope you will consider the three assertions below, which you can verify fairly easily.
1) Terrorism is not a statistically significant threat to Americans; it is less threatening than lightning strikes and bathtub drownings. We lose a 9/11’s worth of people from cigarettes every two days, and from automobiles every month.
2) Muslims (and/or ostensibly Muslim patsies) commit fewer terrorist attacks than Jews, Hispanics, and other groups. According to the FBI, only about 6% of terrorist attacks since 1980 have been by Muslims. And since almost all of those “attacks” have been false-flag, ginned up by FBI informants, etc., the real percentage is probably far lower.
3) 9/11, like most other big, spectacular, successful terrorist attacks, was an example of state-sponsored false-flag terrorism, committed by the enemies of the group blamed for the attack. The reason for this is that terrorism is almost always an ineffective military tactic unless it is false-flag (see Caleb Carr’s The Lessons of Terror). Resistance against occupation, of course, often is effective, but it does not qualify as terrorism, since it primarily targets foreign military forces and occupiers, not civilians (see Robert Pape’s Dying to Win).
I cannot help thinking that if you and others involved in the prosecution of Tarek Mehanna had been aware of these three simple facts, this miscarriage of justice would never have transpired.
PS I am sending you a copy of my book Questioning the War on Terror, which includes documentation for the three assertions listed above.