By Brandon Martinez

I’ve written before about how “anti-war” zealots calling themselves truthers are actually just subversive agents of Russian and Iranian expansionism.

This video proves that George Galloway is a literal shill working for and being paid directly by the propaganda organs of Russia and Iran:

Another who I’ve written about before is Muslim-American convert Kevin Barrett, who spends most of his time denying Muslims are even capable of violence against non-Muslims and that all terrorism is faked by the enemies of Muslims.

Barrett has spent the past 15 years crusading against wars in the Middle East. He decries the “regime change” agenda of past US presidents. Yet hypocritically he can be heard calling for a regime change himself against governments that he doesn’t like, such as ones governing the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

In this recent interview Barrett explicitly calls for the Saudi regime to be overthrown.

Regime change needed in “Saudi” Arabia! Kevin Barrett debates pro-Saudi flack Jihad Mouracadeh

So how can this anti-regime change activist now be cheerleading for a regime change of his own? Obviously because Saudi Arabia is a rival of Iran, Barrett’s paymaster and chief media sponsor. So Barrett morphs from anti-intervention, anti-war hippie into a regime change hawk when the policy serves the geopolitical interests of his paymasters in Iran and Russia. Just like George Galloway who said he’s only against Western airstrikes in the Middle East while vigorously cheerleading for Russia’s bombs.

Barrett also fashions himself an anti-Zionist and outspoken critic of Jewish supremacism. But that is only applied to perceived Jewish-Israeli abuses and plots that adversely affect his Muslim in-group in the Middle East. In a debate with me, Barrett made apologies for the genocidal anti-white efforts of Jewish globalists like George Soros. So when elite Jews do things to undermine whites, Barrett sides with the Jews against whites. His Islamic brethren are benefitting from the Jewish effort to swamp the West with brown immigrants, so they’re now working together in a sinister confederation to destroy nationalism among whites.

This is proof that these Muslim and leftist truther hypocrites are total frauds who speak out of both sides of their mouths. They’re not anti-war. They love war when their favourite regimes are waging them and will work with their own perceived enemies to hurt whites.

The “truthers” have no serious arguments against what I’ve said in various articles critiquing them on this blog. Case in point is this piece about me by some Islamocuck truther girl named Jaci Stanton.

The entire article is bereft of any actual attempt at refuting what I say in my articles on truthers and their contradictions. Instead, she wrote a long autobiographical screed about how she became so favourable to Muslims after learning “the truth” about 9/11 and neocon-inspired wars. Throughout the piece she mentions that after discovering war crimes committed by the US in Iraq, she developed a “huge passion for” the Middle East and Muslims. Yeah, I would say that’s the standard backstory and psychology of most Islamophilic truthers. Nothing special here.

She writes that, “I did not ever draw conclusions about Daesh or become a voice against Zionists and Israel because I wanted to think of Muslims a certain way.” But that’s not true. She attested to developing a philo-Islamic view after being exposed to information about crimes committed against Muslims in various Middle Eastern wars. So all of her views about Muslims after that point have obviously been tainted with the proclivity to see them as eternal victims who can do no wrong on their own accord. That’s the problem. That bias has caused her analysis of Muslim issues generally to be skewed by feelings of guilt and sympathy that arose from reading about the suffering of some Middle Easterners during the wars after 9/11. I don’t deny that some Muslims have been victims of injustice. My bias against Islam and Muslim immigration into the West doesn’t stop me from acknowledging that in certain cases they have been wronged by non-Muslims (Iraq war, Palestine, etc.). But that doesn’t mean all or even the majority of Muslims are therefore victims, nor does it mean that Islam is a benevolent religion. Nor does that disprove the fact that some Muslims have been perpetrators and aggressors, rather than victims, both today and historically.

She and others like her refuse to address my valid points, such as that the Islamic terror threat today is clearly real, thus rendering 9/11 truth a pointless exercise in that it’s main contention, that the “terror threat” is fabricated, is now an untenable position to maintain. How about that 9/11 can’t be used as a pretext for future wars, thus rendering 9/11 irrelevant from an anti-war perspective? Or the fact that the “truthers” can’t get their story straight in that they say Islamic terror is fake “over here” but that it’s real “over there” in the Middle East. None of these issues are addressed.

What it comes down to, and what she essentially confesses to, is that she was upset over the Iraq war so she became a bleeding heart shill for Muslims in all their struggles. When Muslims do wrong, it’s not them doing it, but shadowed CIA agents forcing their hand. But that’s not actually proving what they think it is. If Muslim radicals are working with the CIA, then all it proves is that radical Muslims are willing to sacrifice principles to collaborate with other evildoers for short term gain when they have a common interest with these other players. That would make them doubly evil, not innocent. So the claim here is basically that radical Muslims are the murderous foot soldiers for the big powers. I guess that means we should hate them even more?

This woman is engaged in typical reactionary politics and leftists are famous for it. They find out who has been “victimized” in some form or fashion and then leap to their defence in every situation. It’s the same dynamic when leftists write apologia for third world dictatorships like North Korea. Kim Jung-Un is being “targeted” by the big bad American empire so he “must be doing something good.”

She writes that she “loves Muslims” and describes them as “kind and loving” who have “a gentleness and sweetness about them.” Yeah, tell that to the people who have had their heads sawed off by Isis, were just knifed to death on the London Bridge or were run over by a Muslim kamikaze in a truck. Tell that to the 2,000 Nigerians massacred in a matter of days by the “kind and loving” Islamists of Boko Haram who are just doing Allah’s work. This kind of pro-Islamic cuckoldry is a sign of our times as the left tries to drive the dagger deeper into the heart of the West.

While she lacks any serious argument refuting my points, she does manage to mete out some insults about my eyes scaring her, how I’m a “douche bag,” and the typical leftist charge that I’m a “racist.” Then there’s this gem in the comments:

But, yeah, this Brandon Martinez guy has revealed himself as some sort of arrogant psycho with disturbed eyes. To me as a woman he looks like the kind of guy who would slip rufies in my drink and laugh at me if I fell. He’s messed up.

Oh, how typical of an emotional woman to make up outrageous nonsense in order to impute malevolent intentions on someone she disagrees with. This rhetoric reminds me of what unstable women typically do when they go through a break-up with a guy: portray their exes as evil SOBs who are intent on hurting and raping women. Not only am I an evil racist, but “clearly” I’m the kind of guy who would try to abuse women! Racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic – these are all the evils that the left attribute to straight, white men. This is all so ironic considering she’s an Islamophile who has a love-in with a genuine rape culture. In Islam, when a woman is raped, she is the one charged with adultery! But she just loves herself some Muslims whereas an evil white male like myself is the real danger.

These paranoid truthers label all dissent from their cult narrative as “cognitive infiltration” by the shadow government to throw them off their fruitless quest for truth and justice. They function like a standard cult on par with scientology. Dissenters and critics are scorned and abused. The party line must be enforced at all times. Anyone who sways is a “heretic” to be outcast forever.

Also of note is that on her Facebook page, she’s posing like a prostitute in front of leftie pro-Palestine memes. What would her pious Muslim friends think of that?

She claims she’s not virtue-signalling for Muslims yet in the article she posted this weird picture of a smiling Muslim guy. Clearly an attempt to portray Muslims as harmless fuzzy teddy bears that just want a big hug. That is the very definition of virtue signalling!

By Brandon Martinez

With Iran now blaming ISIS for an attack on its parliament and a popular religious shrine, the false flag cult has come undone, exposing itself as a fraud that, like the boy who cried wolf, only yells “false flag” when the target of the attack is in the West. If this kind of attack happened in a Western country, the false flaggers would be all over it with their redundant amateur “analysis” trying to pick holes in the story. But with the attack in Iran, none of that seems to be happening. They either ignore it completely, or simply say that it’s a real attack by ISIS, but dishonestly add that ISIS are “fake Muslims” in the pay of shadowy Westerners. They won’t ask the typical “cui bono” type questions here because in this case Iran is the beneficiary, gaining world sympathy as a fellow victim of ISIS terrorism.

These cultists consider Iran to be an innocent “victim” nation under assault by the big powers, so scrutiny is never applied to its government, which was founded by a religious fundamentalist maniac who had 30,000 “dissidents” executed in one year. Interesting that they condemn other countries in the Middle East that have “collaborated” with Western powers, but sweep aside how Iran directly helped the United States overthrow the rival Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2001, took advantage of the US invasion of Iraq to empower their Shiite proxies who had long sought to supplant Saddam Hussein (a historic foe of Iran who invaded the country in 1980), and supported the uprising against and overthrow of Libya’s Gaddafi, which they marketed as part of an “Islamic Awakening” at the time. These low-brow simpletons never call out Iran on its hypocrisy and double-dealing because that would get in the way of their current task of shilling for that regime to “avoid war,” or whatever they tell themselves to justify it.

This cognitive bias is also evident in their skewed and contradictory “analysis” of Syria. Whilst they are clearly extreme apologists for Muslims when Muslims are accused of terror against the West, they reverse themselves in the rather complex powder keg of Syria, where mainly Muslim factions are battling against the truth movement “hero” Assad. In that theater, the “truthers” claim that not only are the Muslim extremists doing all the terrorism and atrocities of the war, but they’re also behind various “false flag” attacks designed to frame the “innocent” Assad regime, which is held up as a bastion of virtue and “resistance.” So in the West these “analysts” contend radical Muslims are innocent patsies being set-up by our governments, but in Syria the narrative is exactly the opposite, where the radical Muslim rebels are portrayed as evil villains who are so dastardly and conniving that they’ve been organizing false flag massacres to frame Assad. These same people who viscerally hate the West and blame all the world’s problems on it, take the opposite line as they market Assad as a virtuous, Western-educated secularist who dresses like we do and speaks English and should thus be supported against his fundamentalist Muslim opponents. The disconnects here are stunning.

Predictably, truther scrutiny is also never applied to terror that takes place within the borders of Russia, even though most of it is usually blamed on separatist Muslims from the Caucasus. This is a case where their pro-Russian, pro-Putin bias takes precedence over their pro-Muslim bias, dusting off examples where Russia has manipulated and made scapegoats of Muslims for terror.

This is all very prototypical of politically-interested ideologues who, while falsely fronting as “truth seekers,” function as little more than emissaries propelling the propaganda of the beloved “white hat” regimes of the East. But their tricks and biases are becoming more and more apparent as time goes by.

By Brandon Martinez

On the one hand various “truthers” proclaim that al-Qaeda doesn’t exist. James Corbett even released a documentary some years ago with the title, “Al-Qaeda Doesn’t Exist.” But today their story has changed. Now a lot of these same truthers say that al-Qaeda is so dangerous that we need Russia to bomb them in Syria. Most of them support this Russian military campaign to eliminate various al-Qaeda or Isis-affiliated rebels throughout Syria. Even the non-al-Qaeda rebels are considered fair game to bomb by some of the more fanatic pro-Assad truthers. So which is it? It can’t be both. Do these groups exist or not? Are they a “manufactured threat” or are they such a huge menace that they need to be wiped out by Russia?

The incoherence of the truther narrative is comical. They’re clinging to the outdated truther narrative about the fraudulence of the “terror threat” but at the same time contend that the threat is real over in Assad’s neck of the woods. But at various points they say even some of that stuff, like the beheading videos, are fake. Even so they contend bombing Isis is good if it’s the Russians leading the campaign. Their narrative is wildly incoherent. They want to maintain that Muslims are innocent patsies who are always set-up by the West, so they’ve resorted to saying that Isis are just “paid mercenaries” under CIA mind control or masked Mossad agents. This takes the blame away from the radical Islamic ideology that drives these groups and puts it back on suited intelligence officers in the West. The poor, innocent Muslims have no responsibility or agency. They don’t make their own decisions. They’re all just hapless dupes doing someone else’s dirty work.

Overlapping geopolitical interests have caused various states (including the US and Israel, but principally the Gulf States) to tacitly enable Isis’s rampages, but that doesn’t mean the group isn’t genuine in its stated goals to establish a Caliphate and implement Sharia law as all Islamic radicals say is their divine mission here on earth. Manipulation is not the same thing as “creation” or top-down pyramidal “control.” Even a leading Saudi cleric admitted that:

The Isis Caliphate is clearly real as this documentary shows:

The devilish Saudi regime has influence over these radical groups and can steer their direction through the funds it gives or withholds from them. The Saudi monarchs use these terrorists as tools of their jihad to purge “heretics” (Shiites, Sufis, etc.) within the Muslim world as well as to slaughter non-Muslim kaffir. But the Saudis know these deranged maniacs will eventually turn on them because the pure zealots believe Saudi Arabia itself is an illegitimate monarchy even if it has implemented some form of Sharia law. There have been numerous Isis-inspired attacks within the kingdom over the past two years. The Saudis are content to direct the most militant of the bloodthirsty beheaders that their ideology has produced into neighbouring rival states, thereby containing them within their own kingdom. But not even they can fully control it and it will eventually come back to haunt them.

Liberal “truthers” cannot face up to the fact that radical Islam is a real thing because it would put a huge dent in their flawed narrative that all evil stems from “the West.”