February 24, 2015
Karin Friedemann
Cole: “Homeland Security/FBI is to Muslims what the Nazi Gestapo was to Jews.” But you see, Jews DID use violence to resist the Gestapo. So, that kind of brings me back to my point about your claim that Muslims in the US never use violence. Jews in Germany and Eastern Europe DID use violence in response to a threat. Why do Muslims act differently? Again, I ask: Is it the faith? Is it biological? Is it learned behavior?
You”re saying that Muslims in the US are facing their equivalent of the Gestapo, but none of them, zero, zilch, are responding with violent resistance. That’s fascinating, isn”t it? I mean, that’s a bigger story than just the Boston bombing. A large, ethnically-diverse group beset by an existential threat, yet responding in a completely unique manner. That’s a massive story. So I”m trying to understand the core of it. What is it that makes the Muslim response so different?
I see this as “pulling teeth” in the sense that, like a dentist, it’s painful for the other person, and there’s a nice payday coming for me.
Friedemann: I am not aware of any organized Islamic group that is planning or committing any kind of violence and I am also not aware of many or any Muslims committing acts of violence (other than Black Panther party members from previous decades who converted to Islam in prison). I think the reason that Muslims are the most law-abiding ethnic group relates to the fact that they are mostly highly educated professionals; they came to the US for the freedom as well as for work and university, and they don”t drink. So there is no hooliganry.
They are also very very afraid. There are FBI agents in every mosque. Comparing Jews to Muslims”first of all, Jews in Germany had links to Stalin and had some history of violence in Russia, while Muslims do not have any one foreign country that they are associated with, so there isn”t the same level of organization. Furthermore, Muslims are generally moral people who believe that they will go to hell if they commit a sin, so they are much more reluctant to hurt anyone than someone who doesn”t believe in God. What Muslims want is equality and representation in the US political system. They don”t want to overthrow or undermine the Constitution because, like I mentioned, the freedom is why they came here.
In my observation, actually, Muslims are very moral but on certain issues are very lax, especially when it comes to minor level corruption. They are not scrupulous about animal rights, recycling. In their countries it’s normal to pay bribes, they are always late and often tell you what you want to hear rather than “no.” But I never met any one of them who was dedicated to harming anyone. Ever.
Jews have schizoid personalities that place things in categories. So they can support criminality in Israel with pride at the same time as doing great humanitarian work and being really socially progressive in other areas. They are less moral than Muslims sexually. I don”t know how much God cares about that compared to political violence. I guess it matters regarding the place of women in society, if they have rights.
I ended by asking her if she is a Muslim herself.
Friedemann: I do love Islam and consider myself a believer in the One God and all the messengers, although following rules is not my strong point. … I am Karin Maria Friedemann but I used Maria Hussain for some years. My older writing that was more based on Palestine/Israel/Zionism issues is at Mariahussain.wordpress.com. When I was writing as Maria Hussain, they gave me a lot of attention, trying to get me arrested for hate crime; Jihadwatch said I was with Hezbollah and Hamas (which is it??) but then they backed off after they realized my maiden name. I think that they have now decided that I”m insignificant.
And here’s why Karin Friedemann is not insignificant. She’s a young, attractive, and articulate spokesperson for the intellectual cancer that has infected the conspiracy movement, which was never a healthy body to begin with. I”m referring to “false flag” mania: the belief that Muslim terrorism doesn”t exist, that every supposed example of Muslim violence is a frame-up by the Jews, the CIA, the FBI, Baron Rothschild, or perhaps even Wilford Brimley.
Look, I”m “old school.” The first publication to ever cover my work was the Spotlight, Willis Carto’s influential conspiracy rag from the pre-Internet days. Did I like the fact that I was in the Spotlight? No, not at all. I was part of that circle back then, but as an observer, not a believer. I admired Carto as a brilliant businessman. As crooked in practice as he was in gait, Carto played the conspiracy crowd like a virtuoso. He’s the one who mainstreamed the idea of saying “Zionist” instead of “Jewish.” Yes, that was planned. If Carto knew one thing, it’s that the people who use the word “sheeple” are themselves the sheeple-iest people there are. Easily led, and fond of new catchphrases.
But Carto, for all his brilliance, never thought of inventing “false flag.” Back in those days, conspiracy guys were forced to accept certain facts about reality. When James Huberty”a severely mentally ill white supremacist”shot and killed 21 Mexicans, including several children and a newborn baby, at a McDonald’s in San Ysidro in 1984, the conspiracy crowd accepted it. No cries of “Reagan and Bush did it to create sympathy for Mexicans for their amnesty plans.”
Ditto when Patrick Purdy, another white supremacist, wrote “Hezbollah” on his rifle and “death to the Great Satin [sic]” on his flak jacket, and shot to death five Asian schoolchildren in Stockton in 1989.
Prior to the invention of “false flag,” conspiracy buffs had to accept that these events happened. This led to uncomfortable choices for conspiracy maestros like Michael Hoffman, who called Purdy and Huberty “the best of our [white] race,” likening them to Viking heroes. If the “false flag” dodge had been around in the 80s, Hoffman could have said “Those events didn”t happen; those white men were framed.” But, sadly, he”ll forever be on record applauding shooting babies in the head.
But the changes in conspiracy language that occurred between the really old days”when I used to hang out watching Willis Carto suck the marrow from the bones of children under a bridge”and 9/11 aren”t as interesting as the changes in the language from 9/11 to now. In less than 14 years, “false flag” has supplanted “blowback” as the response of choice for those who want to rationalize or deny Muslim terror. This struck me hard during my interview with Friedemann. It’s no longer a matter of saying “The US messed with them, and now we”re reaping what we sowed.” Rather, it’s “Cute little funny bunny Muslims don”t kill.”
“Blowback” and “false flag” are incompatible. They can”t both be true. “Blowback” demands that the terror events organically originate from Muslims, by their own desires and their own motivations. Muslims are pissed, and they”re fighting back. “False flag” is the opposite. The Muslims are NOT fighting back. Rather, those [insert your conspirator caricature of choice] are the ones faking the attacks and framing the Muslims.
I asked several of my more conspiracy-minded Facebook friends about the “blowback” vs. “false flag” conundrum. An answer was provided by Brandon Martinez, 9/11 truther and PressTV staple:
It’s quite simple David. More information has come to light since the time when many were saying 9/11 was “blowback” which demonstrates that the blowback hypothesis is inadequate to explain the myriad of holes in the official conspiracy theory … You”re acting as if there is an internal inconsistency in “truther” thinking in that everyone who once proposed 9/11 was blowback are now saying it was a false flag. Some people, like Chomsky, Greenwald, Ron Paul, etc. still maintain the blowback hypothesis, whereas many have suggested it was a false flag from the beginning.
Well, it’s none of my business, as it’s not my circle”aside from the fact that they tend to buy my books and click on my articles”but I”d seriously counsel the conspiracy folks to stick with blowback. Keep it partially real, fellas. Do justice to your forebears. Honor the memory of Willis Carto … wait, I think Carto is still alive. (I can never tell. It’s like looking at Angelina Jolie: hard to differentiate between the living person and a desiccated mummy.)
You don”t have to keep both feet on the ground, but one is not a bad idea. “False flag” has made you lazy. “Blowback” at least keeps you in the conversation. Anyway, that’s my two two cents, coming, as it does, from a “Great Satin.”
