Truth Jihad Radio

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News linkHeads up! This week’s False Flag Weekly News guest commentator, Wyatt Peterson, just published “Is Israel Planning to Assassinate President Trump?” -KBTrump wants to make a deal with Iran. That’s why he murdered the current Supreme Leader’s father, along with 168 schoolgirls at Minab and hundreds of other civilians.Trump’s attempts to make a deal with Iran include: threats of total annihilation, claims that he has already won, obscene Easter outbursts ("Open the F****n' Strait, you crazy b******s, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah!"), unilaterally declaring possession of the “Strait of Trump,” and vacillating between outraged tirades about how Iran will never have a nuclear weapon and deprecations of the “nuclear dust” that is so far underground it isn’t very important, anyway.Does Trump think his arrogant scorn for the men and women he’s sent off on a deadly fool’s errand will somehow enhance his negotiating position? Does he imagine that telling the crew members of the USS Abraham Lincoln that after eight months at sea with extremely poor logistical support, “they haven’t been out there nearly long enough” will somehow win concessions from Iran’s Supreme Leader?Is there some method to Trump’s apparent madness—some multidimensional-chess-style negotiating strategy? To find out, we turn to Trump’s magnum opus, The Art of the Deal. According the real author, Tony Schwartz, Trump didn’t write a single word of that book, and probably didn’t even read much of it. Schwartz says Trump spent a couple of hours with his (Schwartz’s) book, made a few minor marks, and falsely claimed authorship.Schwartz says Trump’s attention span is so microscopic that it was impossible to do meaningful interviews. So he shadowed Trump for 18 months, embellished and mythologized Trump’s activities and purported methods, and wound up “putting lipstick on a pig.” AI is mostly a curse, but it’s useful for pulling up the main points of a book one would never dream of buying or reading. According to AI summaries The Art of the Deal advocates various dealmaking strategies that may or may not relate to Trump’s attempts to come to terms with Iran, including:*“Think big.” Trump says he plans to steal all of Iran’s oil and unilaterally incorporate the Strait of Hormuz into the United States, renaming it “The Strait of Trump.” I guess that counts as thinking big—in the same way the asylum inmate who insists he’s Napoleon is thinking big.*“Go with your gut feeling, don’t listen to the experts.” When Netanyahu and his Mossad chief visited Trump and advocated attacking Iran, and all of Trump’s advisors except Hegseth were against it, Trump went with his gut feeling…which was, we surmise, that if he didn’t do what Netanyahu ordered, video evidence of Trump raping underage girls might be made public.*“Always deal from a position of strength.” Trump has been so hilariously unconvincing in his pretensions to be dealing from a position of strength— “we’ve wiped out their entire military,” “we have total control over the Strait,” “our regime change succeeded,” “we’ve completely obliterated their nuclear sites,” “their economy has completely collapsed”—that he has indeed developed a very strong position…as a comedian specializing in self-parody.*“Maximize your options.” Trump’s supposed strategy of never getting locked into a single deal or path, but instead developing all sorts of fallback options, obviously isn’t working as intended: Trump has exactly ZERO options except surrender. So he parodies the “maximize your options” strategy by being wildly inconsistent and incoherent, saying one thing one minute and its opposite five minutes later. Today, we’re going to invade and occupy them and steal their oil; tomorrow, we’re going to nuke them back to the Stone Age; and the day after tomorrow, we’ll just walk away because, contrary to appearances, we’ve already won. In other words, “maximize your options” has become “maximize your b******t.”*“Get the word out.” AI summaries say The Art of the Deal advocates “using publicity and sensational storytelling strategically to capture attention and influence public perception.” Trump is certainly succeeding at grabbing public attention through publicity and sensational storytelling about his misbegotten war on Iran. Unfortunately for him, he is grabbing negative public attention by making a complete ass of himself. “Strategic” doesn’t describe his attention-grabbing incoherence, rage, and obscenity—nor his capturing the world’s imagination, and making it collapse in unbelieving laughter, by sneaking out of Air Force One in a food cart while sending staff and journalists into the sky as bait for purported Iranian missiles. A stunningly brilliant publicity stunt, that…for Iran.*“Deliver the goods: Back up bold claims with real results.” This, of course, is where Trump most obviously falls flat. The gaping abyss between what comes out of Trump’s unhinged mouth and discernible reality is so vast that one can only marvel at the sheer chutzpah that enables him to emit such preposterously vacuous noises.In reality, it is Iran’s leadership that is giving a master class in the art of the deal. *Iran is thinking big. Iran is not just trying to win by surviving, as the North Koreans and North Vietnamese and Taliban did. Instead, it is envisaging a radically different future in which the US fully withdraws from West Asia, concedes Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, returns Iran’s stolen money that it has been holding for 47 years, ends all sanctions, concedes Iran’s full NPT-enshrined rights to civilian nuclear activity, and pressures “Israel” into permanently ending its genocidal war against its neighbors including Lebanon and Palestine.*Iran is not listening to the Western establishment “experts.” Instead, Iran relies on its own expertise and know-how. That’s why the Western experts, who thought the US 100-to-1 military spending advantage was insurmountable, got a rude awakening. Iranian leaders have long understood that an impregnable missile-and-drone force could beat a much larger traditional army and navy, and they’ve been planning for that contingency for decades. What’s more, instead of the “gut feelings” that Trump advocates, Iran listens to the inner voice of faith, cultivating and seeking Divine guidance and inspiration. *Iran is dealing from a position of strength. As John Mearsheimer and other experts noted, Iran essentially won the war within the first 72 hours. That victory has gotten more crushing with every passing day. The US has exhausted its munitions, while Iran just keeps manufacturing more new rockets and drones than it fires. Iran’s assets are protected, buried deep underground, often beneath mountains, while US assets are vulnerable. Iran’s long range rockets and drones would enable it to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed even if the US somehow managed to occupy the whole Iranian shoreline of the Persian Gulf, a feat that might require as many as a million troops and casualties in the tens if not hundreds of thousands. Iran can match any attack on its civilian infrastructure with equal or greater attacks on the infrastructure of US allies. And Iran’s population is united behind its leadership and demands an even more militant stance than the leadership is pursuing, whereas the American people never supported “Trump’s Excellent Iran Adventure” even before its calamitous failure was obvious. *Iran has all kinds of options. Iran can tighten the squeeze on the global economy to whatever degree it chooses, by calibrating the amount of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz (and, through its AnsarUllah allies, the Bab al-Mandab) and deciding who passes and who doesn’t. It can offer carrots and sticks to regional and global powers. It can get help from Russia and China to whatever degree necessary. It can use land routes, Pakistan-shore routes, and Caspian Sea routes to evade Trump’s highly permeable “wall of steel” blockade. It doesn’t need nukes since it’s got Hormuz, and can therefore use its nuclear capability as leverage, relinquishing any prospective nuclear weapons program in return for concessions. But barring such a deal, thanks to its highly-enriched uranium, it could, if attacked with a nuclear weapon, rapidly build its own nuclear weapons and retaliate (or buy some from North Korea or Pakistan, as Pépé Escobar says they already have).*Iran is getting the word out with sensational storytelling. Iran can’t take credit for Trump’s catering truck escapade, but they are taking advantage of it with their trademarked LEGO videos that have captured the imagination of the world. Iran has successfully (and accurately) cast itself as the “lovable underdog” handing an obnoxious bully (Trump) his just desserts. *“Iran is delivering the goods, backing up its bold claims with real results. Unlike Trump, Iran hypes its real accomplishments: Trump claims the Strait is under his control and open for business; Iran slams a drone into one of the very few ships dumb enough to take Trump’s word. Trump claims Iran’s military is “totally obliterated”; Iran points to satellite photos showing that it is the US bases in the region that have been totally obliterated. Trump claims a downed airman has been heroically rescued; Iran releases photos and eyewitness reports showing that what really happened was a botched US attempt to snatch Iran’s uranium that left shot-up US aircraft carcasses strewn across the desert landscape.Has Mojtaba Khamenei been reading The Art of the Deal? I doubt it. Tony Schwartz’s ideas, which he temporarily credited to Trump, are all-too-obvious distillations of conventional wisdom…tired old bromides, really, that anyone with some time on their hands could easily come up with, even if they weren’t shadowing Donald Trump. We all know it’s best to deal from strength. We all know that “thinking big” (within reason) can sometimes work. We all know that listening to our gut intuition (or better yet, flashes of Divine guidance) is a good idea, and that the experts are sometimes wrong. We all know it’s better to have options than no options. We all know, if we’ve taken any good literature classes, that storytelling rules the world. And we all know that people who back up their bold claims with real results tend to be more successful than those who endlessly b******t…people like Donald Trump, America’s Bullshitter-in-Chief.Iran is led by people who have undergone the most rigorous academic training—in philosophy and theology—on Earth. They read and write serious books. And when they are forced to wage defensive war, they bring that brainpower to bear.The USA is led by an airheaded narcissist who once pretended to write a book, but probably has never actually read a serious book in his life. If Trump really did keep a book of Hitler’s speeches at his bedside, as his ex-wife Ivanka claims, it probably served as a talisman rather than material for serious reading.Mojtaba Khamenei is driving a hard bargain. He knows he has Trump, his father’s murderer, over a barrel. It seems that Iran is teaching some hard lessons to the purported author of The Art of the Deal. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link Truth Jihad link Press TV interviewed me and Clive Menzies on last night’s News Review. Below is a transcript.Press TV: It’s a pleasure to have you. Thanks for your patience. Joining us from Morocco, Kevin Barrett. I put the first question about the International Energy Agency’s report just earlier today. A set of oil inventories, Dr. Barrett, plunged by 2.2 million barrels a day last month. It said shipping traffic through Hormuz has slowed with just 16 vessels transiting the Strait over the course of Monday and Tuesday, according to Kepler data. He said that that’s down from about 130 to 140 daily transits before the war, meaning before February 27th. Your initial thoughts, please.Kevin Barrett: Well, this shows that Iran has managed to get control over the Strait, and that wouldn’t have happened if Trump hadn’t allowed Netanyahu to talk him into launching this disastrous war. He did a dastardly sneak attack on Iran under cover of negotiations, murdering the Supreme leader of Iran, members of his family, other leaders, and all sorts of other people, including lots of civilians, notably the 168 people killed at the school in Minab. So this war was launched under false pretenses, under the false notion that it was supposed to be over within a few days with a new pro-Israel leadership that would take orders from Trump and Netanyahu. And this was all a fantasy.And that has forced Iran to basically go nuclear, not with a literal nuclear weapon, but with the equivalent, by seizing control of the Strait of Hormuz, which is what all of us predicted would happen if the Americans were ever stupid enough to actually attack Iran. And so it’s clear, the handwriting is on the wall. Trump and his team are desperate. Their desperation is coming through in everything they do, whether it’s Trump screaming out obscene tirades on Twitter one day and then retracting them and saying that we’re on the edge of a peace breakthrough. The American leadership is showing that they’re completely discombobulated, confused, afraid, and they have no idea how to get themselves out of this predicament that they’ve gotten themselves into. Whereas Iran, which has been planning for this for decades, knows exactly what it’s doing. It has the Americans over a barrel, as John Mersheimer said in his video today. The writing’s on the wall. The Americans are just going to have to accept that they lost, and they’re going to have to allow Iran to dictate the terms, and the terms are absolutely clear: Call off the war, give Iran back its money, pay reparations, and the war has to stop across all fronts, including in Lebanon and Gaza.If Trump were smart, he would accept that. He would declare peace. He would claim credit for forcing the Israelis to make peace with the Palestinians, forcing them to withdraw to their pre-’67 borders. But he’s not smart enough to figure that out, apparently. So he’s going to keep muddling through and making these kinds of confused, irrational, lashing-out gestures for who knows how long, maybe a few more months, in which case he’s in serious trouble in the November elections.Press TV: Thank you, Dr. Barrett. Mr. Menzies, the U.S. President today, again—I don’t know if you saw his tweet saying the U.S.—and you’ve seen him repeat this a number of times—the U.S.A. controls the Strait of Hormuz. But obviously that has not been corroborated. Clive Menzies: People like Donald Trump are not in charge. They’re in office but they’re not in charge. They’re responding to the incentives and penalties. And the particular circumstances of their own situation. Trump is a notorious loose cannon who fires off in all directions. But essentially, I don’t think he has a lot of room to manoeuvre, other than to keep this stop-go war going, because that’s what the incentives are providing. I mean, your other guest said what would be sensible, but that has very little to do with what’s unfolding. As he said at the outset, if sense made any relevance for this, then the war wouldn’t start in the first place. So we’re in the throes of this structure shaking itself apart, and the actors, be they Israeli, American, Palestinian, Iranian, or whatever, are having to respond to the situation that arises. And those on the side of Israel, US, UK, Europe, are actually in a far greater state of confusion and control than Iran, which is primarily trying to look after its own interests and not seeking to interfere in other places around the world. So that’s the difference. You have this meddling out of one’s jurisdiction, which is going on, whilst the the moral high ground, if you like, sits with those who are being attacked, not with those doing the attacking.Press TV: All right. And Dr. Barrett, U.S. officials—I’m putting pretty much the same question to you. They’ve warned the continued shutdown of this critical waterway could lead to higher oil and gas prices. Despite Donald Trump’s insistence, the U.S. still has control over it. So my question to you, why the lies? Okay, to keep possibly public panic at bay. But that’s usually when you have a plan. That you’re going to implement to get to your objective. Not usually when you tried everything, it hasn’t gotten you the intended results and you’re just lying for the sake of lying.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, that’s a good question. It’s sort of like the classic psychological phenomenon of denial, when there’s some terrible problem and people just avert their eyes from it. It’s a very common situation, whether in ordinary life or even in politics. My life has been heavily affected by the denial of the American people over two overwhelmingly important historical events: the coup d’etat that killed President Kennedy in 1963, and then the September 11, 2001 false flag attack that launched the series of disastrous wars in West Asia. And we’re seeing the final one, the one that the Americans are going to permanently lose, playing out right now.Americans have been in denial about these coups and the fact that their democracy is illusory. And so the leadership is likewise in denial. They imagine that they’re still in their unipolar moment after they took over the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and they have the world’s strongest military, they spend more money on the military than the next eight countries combined. And so why can’t they just easily win any war that they choose to jump into? That’s Trump’s attitude. But his narcissism that leads to this kind of denial and lying is actually not just a personal peccadillo, but also a kind of a symbolization and concretization of the state of the American nation. That is, the whole country and its leadership are in denial. Of the fact that they’re on a historical downward trajectory, and that their democratic experiment has largely failed, and has been harmed by these terrible crimes that I mentioned and others as well, that their intervention all over the world is not benign, as they like to pretend, but it’s murderous. They’ve killed well over 50 million people in these interventions since World War II. And so they really can’t accept the terrible reality, the bad side of reality.And so they lie about it and they spin it and they look the other way. And so I think that’s partly what’s going on. And then also, of course, Trump’s statements seem to have a strong effect on the markets, which he and his friends can take advantage of to make a lot of money. Trump is propping up the markets by lying and saying that he is in control, “we are in control of Hormuz, and we’re winning the war.” This reassures the markets. Maybe it’s the artificial intelligence systems that invest much of the money in the markets these days that are programmed to run on whatever the leadership is saying, no matter how ridiculous or false it is. He’s been able to both make a lot of money personally. And then there’s a huge bubble right now, the AI bubble and the derivatives bubble. I think the elites in the West are tiptoeing around that and trying to stave it off, and their denial and their lying is one way of trying to do that.Press TV: Thank you there. And Mr. Menzies, I got this little extract just before the show off, this website, US government website, congress.gov. It said on June 17, 2026, President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pazishyan signed a Memorandum of Understanding, infamously known as the MOU, the Pakistan Media MOU, I know you’re very well aware, declaring The removal of the U.S. naval blockade and Iranian arrangements for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only, with future administration of the strait to be determined by Iran in consultation with Oman and other Persian Gulf states. Now, the MOU was working and Iran’s sovereignty authority was stipulated in it, Clive. So why did the U.S. president put a signature on it and immediately not only uphold the obligations under it, but move to renege on it.Clive Menzies: Well, as I said, you know, this is the manifestation of psychopathy in action. Basically, the structure under which we live is psychopathic. And it selects for an incentivized psychopath. Because That’s the way the structure operates. So your other guest is perfectly right. We are in the midst of a collapse. And to some extent, a lot of this drama over oil prices is part of the theatre, trying to draw attention from the structural nature of the collapse. You know it’ll be blamed on the oil shop. That’s not a new story. But actually, the collapse that has been underway, arguably since 2008, although it’s been staved off with bank bailouts and huge socialization of what is essentially private debt, what the banks made. So we’ve taken that on. And now the system is premised on people having enough income to be able to afford to buy the goods they produce. That equation no longer works. So the system has no long-term future, and we’re living through the transition. As I’ve said before, this is a subject that requires a lot more understanding to do with the role that technology is playing in allowing us to circumvent institutions to be able to organise ourselves separately from the structures. They are psychopathic, and they are there to extract, control, divide, and kill, basically. Press TV: Right. And Dr. Barrett, I got this little extract from this kid out of Georgia Tech, and I put it in my lead earlier. I think you joined us after I read the lead, so I’m going to read this part for you. The experts warn the most severe economic consequences from prolonged closure of the Strait, that is, including higher food prices. So I want to put that same question to you, if you would also weigh in on “why the U.S. refusal to abide by this memorandum.” Does it just go back to simple psychosis and the U.S. president and his cronies getting asset gains through the markets because of it? Or is there some other sinister or even logical explanation to this?Kevin Barrett: Well, I think that there are all sorts of different interests that are able to profit by the current state of things as the world as a whole is heading for disaster. And among those, one that we haven’t mentioned very much so far is the genocidal Zionist entity which created this war in the first place. The state of Israel actually was behind the murder of John F. Kennedy and the false flag attack of 9/11, which was used to hijack the American military to go after those seven countries in five years that General Clark talked about that were all problems for Israel, but not problems for the United States.And so this is the seventh war. They’re going after that seventh country, and it took them 25 years, not five years. And the Israelis would be perfectly happy to see all kinds of mayhem come out of this. They wouldn’t mind seeing Iran much more devastated and the other side of the Persian Gulf devastated as well, because that would weaken other parties in the region and pave the way for their greater Israel project, which is committing genocide and stealing all the land and property between the Nile and the Euphrates rivers and becoming the de facto global capital. That’s their long-term plan.And they would love to see the world crushed into a horrible depression. They wouldn’t care if there’s a world war or even a nuclear exchange as long as it doesn’t hit them. And so they’re the ones who are pushing this towards the precipice.They started it by lying to Trump and telling him that “all you have to do is kill the Iranian leadership and we’ll have our guys in power in a couple of days.” And obviously that didn’t work out, because they were lying. I don’t think even the Israelis weren’t stupid enough to think that was going to happen.They just knew that once they got the Americans into this, then the Americans would never get out and they could keep pushing, pushing, pushing, trying to make it as destructive as possible. So Israel is an example of one very powerful party that is profiting from this endless cycle of destruction that’s heading us over the cliff. And then, of course, as we mentioned, Trump and his friends are making money gambling on the markets. The military industrial complex is happy as Trump is throwing the biggest budgets at them in all of history. And so there are various corrupt interest groups that are doing well, even as the general interest is being completely crucified.And so that’s that’s kind of how it works in these Western liberal secular so-called democracies that are really battles between corrupt psychopathic gangster special interest groups. And I think that has a lot to do with why we’re going in the wrong direction.We need to change the system in Western countries from these corrupt gangster oligarchies to something a lot more like what you have in Iran, what China has. In both cases, you have a kind of an elite, whether it’s the Confucian elite in China selected by rigorous examinations or the religious elite in Iran selected through a similarly rigorous scholarly process in the seminaries. And when you have that kind of elite steering the ship of state, you’re going to have a much better system, a much less corrupt system than you have when you allow gangster oligarchies to rule the show as they do in the West. So I think that’s partly why things are working out the way they are.Press TV: Right, and we only have about two minutes left, Mr. Menzies. If I get this last question out to Iran and Oman, are the final stages of etching out a management regime to monitor shipping through the Strait of Hormuz? But the U.S. says it will never accept Iran managing the Strait into the future. Iran says, “hey, I never wanted to, but all that changed on February 28th. That ship has sailed now. There’s going to be a new regime, and we’re never going to go to pre-war status.” Do you see any prospects of optimism on the horizon?Clive Menzies: I see a lot of reasons to know that the world is transitioning to something much better. Being able to predict anything within this rather chaotic situation is fraught with difficulty. But I think I would like to refer to Israel’s role in this. Because Israel, as we know, was created as a private fiefdom for the families that control money. So it is a tool. It is not the prime mover in this. Similarly, Ukraine has been selected. More recently, Argentina. So there are centers of power that have been, if you like, colonized or taken over by money, which are fomenting all this. They’re funding both sides. I don’t think there’s any salvation in any form of elite hierarchy in terms of rule. The Chinese are similarly compromised, but not to the extent of the West. And Iran is reacting to, in many respects, the structure of money. So nobody is free from the grip of money power and the games that they’re playing. And Israel is probably on the course to self-destruction, but that is irrelevant to those that have a much higher goal, which is essentially control of the world and population reduction.Press TV: Gentlemen, pleasure to have you both on. Very interesting stuff there for the both of you. Thank you sincerely. Kevin Barrett there, joining us from Saidia Morocco, and also Clyde Menzies joining us out of London. If yours, this brings us to the conclusion of another segment of your Spotlight program. Thank you for tuning in, and goodbye for now.Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link Dismantle the Matrix Analysis on YouTube “Kevin Barrett 911 whistleblower on Hannity and Colmes” original YouTube The 25th anniversary of 9/11 is also, more or less, the 20th anniversary of the Fox News interview that got me expelled from American academia. That interview, conducted on July 11 2006, went viral on a brand-new platform called YouTube. It shot to over 100,000 views within a week or two…and the count mysteriously froze. Today it supposedly has 100,608 views…which seems a tad low, since I’ve probably gotten more than 608 emails about it during the past 20 years. Google Gemini goes full conspiracy theorist on this one: The exact video link you shared—your Hannity & Colmes Fox News interview from July 2006—is the ultimate textbook example of YouTube’s Borderline Content Policy and Information Panel intervention. The platform is not malfunctioning; instead, your specific video has been placed into a tightly controlled algorithmic quarantine.In 2013, a 30-minute YouTube analysis of my five-minute Fox News interview went viral and currently sits at 217k views. I’ve posted it above, and transcribed it below.The narrator, a certain Jonathan Adampants, analyzes Hannity & Colmes’ propaganda techniques using the framework of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). As it happens, my aunt and uncle, Mary and Robert Goulding, were close-up-and-personal rivals of the founders of NLP. Aunt Mary and Uncle Bob ran WIGFT (pronounced Wig-Foot), the Western Institute of Group and Family Therapy, in the mountains of Watsonville near Santa Cruz. Meanwhile, down at UC Santa Cruz, John Grinder and Richard Bandler were stealing their stuff. My aunt and uncle used Eric Berne’s Transactional Analysis (TA) and Fritz Perls’ Gestalt therapy in their Redecision Therapy. Basically they taught people how to “flip the script” of their lives and change their habits, outlook, and cognitive and emotional orientation, replacing dysfunctional and unpleasant patterns with more enjoyable and productive ones.Grinder and Bandler did the same thing, but in streamlined and (some would say) dehumanized form. They turned it into engineering: push this button, get that behavior. Unlike my aunt and uncle, they didn’t fully credit their sources.Does NLP work? The experts are still arguing. Despite its technical jargon, NLP—like its close cousin, hypnotism—is an art, not a science. But whatever its limitations, NLP does offer a useful framework for analyzing certain kinds of propagandistic performances. Gemini cites a couple of conspiracy theories that are not entirely untrue:The Barack Obama “Hypnosis” Theory: During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, a widely circulated, 67-page anonymous document claimed that Obama’s speeches utilized sophisticated NLP techniques. Critics accused him of using pacing and leading (matching the audience’s current state and then subtly moving them toward a desired emotional state), hypnotic vocal pacing, and deliberate hand gestures as anchors to covertly implant subconscious suggestions.[1]The Donald Trump “Persuasion” Analysis: During the 2016 and 2020 elections, popular Dilbert creator and persuasion blogger Scott Adams, along with various media commentators, frequently analyzed Trump’s communication through an NLP lens. They argued that his use of repetitive nicknames (”Crooked Hillary,” “Lyin’ Ted”), intentional hyperbole, and linguistic pacing were highly effective forms of subliminal behavioral programming designed to bypass rational thought. [1]Adampants’ analysis of my Hannity interview gets a lot right. He correctly calls out the Fox hosts’ name-calling, disruptions, deprecating glances and gestures, and avoidance of reasoned discussion. He understands that Hannity and Colmes’ purpose was to program the audience’s subconscious by attaching negative associations to me personally, and, by association, to 9/11 skeptics in general.But Adampants exaggerates the effectiveness of Hannity and Colmes’ NLP sorcery. He wrongly assumes that I was being influenced by the Fox hosts’ gestures:“By bringing his hands down like that, he’s trying to subconsciously take away the focus of the professor, take away his power, and that’s exactly what he’s doing.”and:“The issue at hand here, what he’s doing, is directing the professor to look at his hand (making the 6-6-6 gesture).”In reality, I couldn’t see those gestures. I was sitting on a tall chair high atop a platform in the middle of the Fox studio in Milwaukee staring into a camera, wearing headphones, with no screen or monitor. Fox employees were at their desks along the sides of the room, and I was on display in the middle. I assumed the Fox studio people had put me in that off-putting, uncomfortable set-up in an effort to throw me off my game. But maybe they inadvertently saved me from being hypnotized by Hannity’s satanic hand signs!I’m also skeptical about Adampants’ assumption that the Fox hosts’ mind-control efforts succeeded, whether on me or on the audience. If this clip were really such a powerful bit of anti-9/11-truth sorcery, why would YouTube have to quarantine it?Watch the interview and/or the “total breakdown” and let me know what you think.—Total Breakdown of The Media’s Use of NLP & Mind ControlColmes: That was University of Wisconsin professor Kevin Barrett, who has recently drawn criticism for plans to teach an Islamic studies course next fall that will incorporate conspiracy theories that the U.S. government was involved in the events of September 11th. Professor Barrett joins us now. Professor, can you give us the context within which you teach this?Jonathan Adampants: Okay. Well, you’ve just seen here is he used a nonverbal gesture with his hands in an outward motion to kind of scatter his thinking, and then swayed both of his hands over to his left shoulder, which would give the subconscious impression of being far to the left and also kind of distracts his thinking a little bit. So that’s what he’s doing. That’s why his hands are all over the place. And then they swing over to his left shoulder to send the subconscious message that he is an extremist, a left winger. Okay.Colmes: Can you give us the context within which you teach this?Kevin Barrett: Well, yeah, sure. I’m teaching an introductory course on Islam, and I think it’s really important to cover these contemporary political issues. And one of them is, of course, the so-called war on terror. Now, the fact is that the great majority of the world’s Muslims believe that 9/11 was an inside job.Colmes: And that’s your opinion, right?Jonathan Adampants: Again, manipulation is all about timing and redirecting and trying to take control of somebody when they’re speaking here. You see a great example of that by saying that’s your opinion. Even though he just stated there’s a vast number of people that are waking up, even though he specifies the Muslim community. That’s not true. It’s all over the world. So the journalist’s responsibility to misdirect his thinking and to to mislead you is to follow up and say, but that’s your opinion. Even though he stated that it wasn’t just his opinion, but it doesn’t matter because people believe what they hear from newscasters. They take in the barrage of words. And the newscaster here understands that. So if he says that he plants that seed.Kevin Barrett: Now, the fact is that the great majority of the world’s Muslims believe that 9/11 was an inside job.Colmes: But that’s your opinion, right?Kevin Barrett: Well, after studying the evidence pretty intensively for two and a half years, I am convinced that 9/11 was in fact an inside job.Colmes: Are students required to regurgitate that in some way in order to do well in your classroom?Jonathan Adampants: Again, more manipulation. I’m sure you caught that. Even though this very system of the world creates people to regurgitate, they will often accuse people of doing the things that they do. It’s just part of it. Okay. So by saying our students required to regurgitate, that gives the subconscious impression that he is controlling their minds and not teaching them to think, when in actuality, to be able to see through the media, to be able to see what is going on is not regurgitation. Any person that does regurgitate and only memorize and not think would not be able to see through it anyway. It doesn’t matter. This is reverse psychology. This is just not even that. It’s just manipulation. It’s just name calling. It’s I’m rubber. You’re glue. Again, this is a way that he disrupts the guy’s thinking with petty comments like that. He knows that this type of person would never want anybody to regurgitate anything, because that doesn’t allow them to learn to think. Doesn’t matter if there is an audience to this. He plants that seed again.Kevin Barrett: Well, after studying the evidence pretty intensively for two and a half years, I am convinced that 9/11 was in fact an inside job.Colmes: Are students required to regurgitate that in some way in order to do well in your class?Kevin Barrett: That’s ridiculous. No, I’m not interested in making students regurgitate anything.Hannity: All right, Mr. Barrett, Sean Hannity here. Do you really believe that 9/11 was an inside job?Jonathan Adampants: Okay. Sean Hannity, I never watched Fox News before, but within seconds of seeing this guy, you can just see that he is a snake. Or at least he is currently conducting himself as such. Now this is pretty basic what he’s doing. He’s not giving eye contact. He’s pretending to be bored with the guy’s very presence. And this is a way to discredit him that way, as if he’s just a some sort of gnat and not even worth considering. And that’s why he’s purposely looking down and acting bored when he talks to him. Secondly, he uses the word believe. Do you really believe? To believe is not to know. And that’s why he’s stressing that. And again, you’re going to start to see extreme manipulation from this, Mr. Hannity.Hannity: All right, Mr. Barrett, Sean Hannity here. Do you really believe that 9/11 was an inside job, not just 9/11, but Madrid and Bali and the Zarqawi operation?Jonathan Adampants: All right. So what he does is he tries to take control of this conversation right away. He insinuates something, and the professor was smart enough to catch what he was saying. And then when he tried to respond to that, he interrupts him to take control. Now notice, and I’ll point this out in a little bit when he puts his hand up in the okay sign, you’re about to learn what that really means and what they use it for. But for now, just understand that that’s how they’ll do it. They’ll insult you while they speak and try to continue speaking before you can actually reply to it. And therefore it makes the professor look nuts, you know what I mean? Because if people don’t catch this neurolinguistic programming, if they don’t catch the manipulation, you know, which comprises the majority of the audience anyway. Nevertheless, if they don’t catch it, then he can do that. He can take those cheap shots. And when the professor tries to correct those, then he interrupts him, says, hey, hold on, you know, and then tries to make him look rude for interrupting and take control over him and disrupt his thinking at the same time.Hannity: The Zarqawi operation—Kevin Barrett: Well, you know, actually.Hannity: Hold on a second.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, yeah, yeah.Hannity: You believe personally that these are inside jobs? Yes or no?Kevin Barrett: It’s not quite that simple.Jonathan Adampants: Okay. I believe personally that’s another way to plant that into your psyche, that it is just he that believes this. And then he uses the yes or no trap, because that is again, misleading. If you can’t see that the way he twisted around that question would not allow the professor to be able to give a yes or no answer, because he injected manipulation into the question itself. So when the professor tries to say that, of course, then it puts him under pressure. The professor is smart enough to catch that, and it isn’t that simple. And he understands. The professor knew, of course, what I’m telling you right now. However, time is ticking. He only has so much time on the air, and their job is to disrupt his thinking as much as possible and make as many hidden accusations as they can, and as many subconscious embeds into how to perceive the professor as they can in the short amount of time that he’s on the air. And that’s their only job, is to discredit and disrupt. Okay. But he did catch it. Now he has to respond to that rather than being able to say anything that matters. And that’s what they do. Another good person at this is Stephen Colbert. If you watch Stephen Colbert with any of his interviews, his whole job is to discredit and disrupt. That’s what he does. And you keep it moving. It’s very, very petty. But these are the people that you allow to run you okay? So know that. And that’s what’s going on right here.Hannity: Yes or no?Kevin Barrett: It’s not quite that simple. I do know, I don’t believe I know that 9/11 was an inside job. Professor Steven Jones has found residue of thermite on the steel samples from the World Trade Center. We now know that it was taken down in a controlled demolition.Hannity: So you believe that the buildings came down in a controlled demolition.Jonathan Adampants: Okay, so the professor did a really good job of identifying his manipulation by saying, I don’t believe I know. And because he was starting to get through that, Hannity interrupts him and says, I don’t have a lot of time. Well, wait a minute. You just asked him a question and now he’s able to break through your manipulation and suddenly you don’t have a lot of time for the very answer to the question that you just asked. The next thing you see, he asks him what evidence does he have? And he interrupted him, giving the evidence to ask him what evidence he has. Why, of course, he’s not interested in hearing the evidence or anybody else hearing it. He’s interested in interrupting him, implanting another embed into the psyche that what he happens to be saying right now is somehow not evidence. It’s all misdirection of focus, redirection of focus, disrupting, interrupting, gaining control. And, you know, it’s this very petty. They they rely on these petty techniques. Now, at the end of this, he does something that a lot of you probably aren’t aware of. He does a hand gesture, he takes both of his hands, and he puts them up in front of his head and then pulls them down, and he pretends he’s talking about the buildings falling down. What that is, is I don’t know what they would term it. I’m just intuitive. I’m perceptive. I can see what they’re doing. That’s sorcery. Sorcery is just anything that is used to circumvent the conscious mind, to control the mind. That gesture is designed to take away his zest, his focus, his power. By bringing his hands down like that, he’s trying to subconsciously take away the focus of the professor, take away his power, and that’s exactly what he’s doing. And that’s what you’re seeing. And I’ll play that again for you.Kevin Barrett: An inside job. Professor Stephen Jones has found residue of thermate on the steel samples from the World Trade Center. We now know that it was taken down in a controlled demolition.Hannity: So you believe that the buildings came down in a controlled demolition?Kevin Barrett: Well, I don’t believe it. I’ve looked at the evidence and the evidence is overwhelming.Hannity: All right. The evidence is overwhelming to you because you’re a conspiracy nut.Kevin Barrett: I ask your viewers to take...Jonathan Adampants: Okay. Now, in this one, I’m sure you caught the obvious part, but you probably did not catch the Neuro-linguistic programming. What exactly is Neuro-linguistic programming? Simply put, it’s dual meaning that is speaking to the subconscious. Now, of course, he’s shaping public opinion by saying “it’s obvious to you because you are a conspiracy nut.” Well, remember now people are very phobic of being called anything that goes against the norm. So if you agree with him, oh, then you’re a nut. And people, you know, they can’t escape their own ego. So that’s used to shape him. What you probably didn’t catch is him saying “but you know, putting that all aside.” This is neuro-linguistic programming. Now pay attention here. “You’re a conspiracy nut. But putting that all aside...” What that is doing is he’s directing your subconscious mind and your conscious mind to store that label, that impression of him. Put it aside. Keep that. It’s called anchoring in neurolinguistic programming, because I’ve watched a little bit of it. I didn’t need to watch it to pick up on how they do this, but it allows you to get some of their terminology down. They call this anchoring. Anchoring a thought, anchoring a concept, anchoring a feeling. Putting all of that aside means put that aside in your mind. He’s a conspiracy nut. Do you see how they manipulate you? That’s a very good lesson right there in Neurolinguistic programming.Hannity: All the evidence is overwhelming to you because you’re conspiracy nut.Kevin Barrett: I ask your viewers to take a look at this evidence for themselves. They can go to STJ911.org. That’s scholars for 9/11 truth. Take a look. Take a look at the demolition. Morgan Reynolds, the former Bush administration official...Jonathan Adampants: Okay, that’s pretty obvious. You see how he’s treating him? Very nonchalant, irritated, bored. “And I know you think you’re the smartest guy in the world.” This is, you know, the typical “you’re a know it all” type of comment. If you watch that David Icke video where he goes back on Rogan, he draws attention to the same thing where he said, whoa, that’s a cheap shot. When he said, “you know it all.” And the response was accurate. I’m not saying I know at all, but people are trained to hate people who, quote, know it all. Why? Because they want you to be dumb. That’s why in society, you have catchphrases that go around that people use. Like “you think too much, you’re too deep. You know it all.” These have all become derogatory terms in this new Orwellian society. Haven’t you noticed that? His response is petty and childish, but he means to be this way. It does nothing. It addresses nothing. He can’t think of anything to say in response to the professor. So he has to take a cheap shot like this. I know you think you’re the smartest guy in the world. That should be obvious to you that that is just overdoing it. Creating, manifesting an insult. Just again, for one reason and one reason only, to disrupt his thinking and to program your mind on how to view him.Kevin Barrett: Look, take a look at the at the demolition. Morgan Reynolds, the former Bush administration official, says that the Bush administration “blew the World Trade Center to kingdom come.” That’s a direct quote from a member of the Bush administration itself.Hannity: I know.Kevin Barrett: “Blew the World Trade Center to kingdom come.”Hannity: Jews were told to leave. We’ve heard a lot of these sick, bizarre theories.Jonathan Adampants: That’s okay. So suddenly he’s an anti-Semite. When did that come about? I didn’t hear him say anything about the Jews. What Hannity’s doing here is he’s trying to link him to anti-Semitism. That’s what they want to do. Now, anybody that’s really trying to speak the truth in this world has no interest in focusing on a group or even an individual. What they try to focus on is the problem in general, outside of any group or individual that may be manifesting the symptoms of the problem. But again, what he’s trying to do here is, in your mind, link the professor to being part of a hate group, someone that’s going to target a group or an individual and make you link the terms “sick” and “bizarre” to the professor. He didn’t say anything about the Jewish community. Nothing. So catch that. See how he’s trying to link the professor to it.Kevin Barrett: “Blew the World Trade Center to kingdom come.” That’s a direct quote from a member of the Bush administration itself. “Blew the World Trade Center to kingdom come.”Hannity: Jews were told to leave. We’ve heard a lot of these sick, bizarre theories. I don’t believe any of them. But you’re allowed to believe what you want. But that’s not what’s at hand here.Jonathan Adampants: Okay, now another thing, just to make you aware again of just how much they’re programming your mind. To you, it looks like a man that said, “that’s not the issue at hand here.” You need to start learning their language. Their language is dual meaning, which goes hand in hand with neuro linguistic programming. The issue at hand here, what he’s doing, is directing the professor to look at his hand. Now, why would he have the professor look at his hand? Well, if you look at his hand right now, you see, it is what you’ve been told is the okay sign, right? Well, let’s show you what it really means. The okay symbol, as you see right here, means six, six, six. For some reason, 666 has some sort of control over the mind. Now it could have something to do with the beast computers many of you have read about. It’s sorcery. It is putting a hex on somebody. It is subconscious symbolism that somehow affects some people. It doesn’t affect everybody. But he’s using that. And he was directing the professor to look at his hand to use sorcery on him.It’s not that one thing will work. They try to use as many combinations of things as they can, but that is a symbol and it means 666. And that is why he told him to look at his hand or the issue at hand here. Told his mind subconsciously to look at his hand. Do you see? And that is what just occurred there. That’s not what’s at hand here. Meaning you are not allowed to believe what you want. And that also tells the population looking at him. Because remember, he is also talking to people that are watching television. And so they are also instructed to look at his hand subconsciously or take notice of it subconsciously. And when he says, you’re allowed to believe what you want, but that’s not what’s at hand here, he’s saying, with the six, six, six rule over your mind, you are not allowed to believe what you want. And that speaks to your subconscious mind and programs people to not think. And that’s what it means all around and all together. That’s what just happened.Hannity: But you’re allowed to believe what you want. But that’s not what’s at hand here. The issue is, is whether or not you with your bizarre theories are the best—Kevin Barrett: I think you have the bizarre theory. You think it was 19 guys with boxcutters...Jonathan Adampants: Okay, again, saying his issues, his views are bizarre, right? But the reason he puts up his pinky there is because that is the weakest finger. That would imply a small penis, not a potent man. Using that in reference to him saying that he is impotent, that he is bizarre, that he is weak, and that he is of the pinky. And that’s why he chooses of all fingers and all gestures to speak about his theories, he puts his pinky up. And these are all subconscious sorcery methods. Again, sorcery is not some guy wearing a magician’s hat. Part of sorcery is speaking to and manipulating the conscious mind from the subconscious.Kevin Barrett: It’s a question of science.Hannity: ...whether or not you, with your bizarre theories are the best—Kevin Barrett: I think you have the bizarre theory. You think it was 19 guys with box cutters led by a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan. That’s ridiculous. I mean, that’s the craziest conspiracy theory of all of them.Hannity: Okay. I wish I had the Twilight Zone music. Now here’s my next...Jonathan Adampants: See, all he can say is something to discredit him. “I wish I had the Twilight Zone music,” and then the people watching the televisions that say, “yes, that must be weird. Twilight zone music is weird, and the the honest and credible news reporters saying that about him.” Okay, now you see that all the neuro linguistic programming is starting to get to the professor. He’s starting to screw up his words. He’s starting to screw up his concentration. He’s mispronouncing. That’s because there’s a lot of negative energy being focused on him, interrupting his thought process. So you can see how he’s starting to screw up his words, but he’s still, with all of that working against him and being unaware of those techniques, he still holds his own, but you start to see it get to him a little bit.Kevin Barrett: I mean, that’s the craziest conspiracy theory of all of them.Hannity: Okay, I wish I had the Twilight Zone music. Now here’s my next question. The issue is at hand here. You’re entitled to have your opinion. I don’t really care what you believe, but if we’re talking about a captive group of students in a classroom.Jonathan Adampants: Again, making a bored face as if he’s nothing, he’s the pinky. He’s lower than low. I really don’t care what you believe, but if we’re talking about a captive group of students, okay, first he he said that they implied that he wants the students to regurgitate. Now he’s holding them captive, which goes hand in hand with what? Terrorism hostages. He’s subconsciously painting this professor to be...what, a terrorist. So not only have they discredited him, but people are already getting in their minds that with this neuro linguistic programming, that’s. Now you understand what neuro linguistic programming is neuro brain linguistics, speech programming, programming, the brain with speech via the subconscious, dual meaning.Hannity: I don’t really care what you believe, but if we’re talking about a captive group of students in a classroom—Kevin Barrett: I’m not going to hold them captive!Hannity: Hang on a second. Well, they’re sitting in your classroom and you have a position of authority. I’m wondering what the question is, whether or not you’re the most competent to teach them. And most people think you’re a nut.Jonathan Adampants: Now, this one should be obvious, isn’t he? A person that’s in a position of authority. And isn’t he about as incompetent as you can get? As far as love and honesty and caring about other life forms. Yet he turns it around because people believe what they hear and what they read. So if he says it first, and that’s a big part of this, he is trying to say things first before somebody else can say something. Then it seems like they will always be on the defensive. And that’s the whole point, is to keep the professor on the defensive. All right. And saying that he is detrimental to his students when the truth is, Fox News is incredibly detrimental to you. Just in this short clip I’m showing you here, and people are watching this all day long.Hannity: And most people think you’re a nut. Most people think—Kevin Barrett: Actually, no, they don’t. We just had a poll here in Madison, and we found that 90% of the respondents at Channel 3000 poll said that I should be allowed to teach. Only 10% said I shouldn’t. That’s the question. 90%!Hannity: I don’t think—Kevin Barrett: And 60% agreed with me about the questions I’m raising about 9/11. 60% of the respondents. I think you’re in the minority.Hannity: I don’t think this is the proper forum, though, for people that hold extremist views like yourself.Jonathan Adampants: Okay, first of all, when he says no, no, like that, what he’s doing is he’s programming the television viewers’ collective consciousness to disregard the results of that poll. He says, no, no. And then your mind says no to the information he just gave. These are just little tricks he slips in there: “and most people think he’s a nut.” What? But see, people watch that, of course, and they store that in their mind as fact. Of course, most people do not think he is a nut. But if he says that, he programs anybody watching this television program hint, hint that “everybody thinks he’s a nut. So I will try to fit in.” Where did he get that number? How does he know? Most people think that he’s a nut. Think about it. They don’t. He just says it. And then the professor has to respond to that. He’s totally disrupting the whole interview. So it appears to people, because time is moving by, that there’s actually an interview going on here, but it’s not. It’s only about disrupting and discrediting and programming your opinion. Okay. First of all, I used to live in Madison, Wisconsin, and I can tell you that people did not think that he was crazy. It was the television that began to program people to think that he was crazy. Again, now, “extremist views like yourself.” Now, they already set the stage in your mind or the viewers mind before he brought that up. In the beginning, when that first reporter took his hands and whipped them over to the left side of his shoulder to subconsciously say that he’s an extreme leftist. He’s on the extreme left. So now they’re reinforcing that, telling you to believe that he is extremist, that these are extreme things. Well, Fox is six, six, six. I mean, just look. Look what they’re doing. Look what I’m pointing out to you. Once you start to understand the dual meaning of neurolinguistic programming, things become crystal clear to you.Kevin Barrett: ...about the questions I’m raising about 9/11. 60% of the respondents! I think you’re in the minority.Hannity: I don’t think this is the proper forum, though for people that hold extremist views like yourself. Reasonable people—Jonathan Adampants: “Reasonable people.” Now notice what he did there. He took his hands and he gestured them towards himself and said, “reasonable people” while pointing to himself. Therefore, your subconscious and your conscious mind is shaped to see Sean Hannity as the reasonable person. They’re always using gestures against you in coordination with dual meaning in things they say to direct meaning. So again, reasonable people, all he has to do is point to himself. And that’s a subtle non-verbal gesture to make you associate being reasonable with Sean Hannity’s point of view. He’s programming your mind. So now, after you have associated being reasonable with Sean Hannity, and when he says “people think” he points out or opens his hands. So you are to think, see, “reasonable people.” He points to himself and then opens it up to, you think you shouldn’t be allowed to teach this class? We can do a better job. People will be programmed by that.Kevin Barrett: You guys are extremist. Fox News is the biggest bunch of extremists on the planet.Hannity: Reasonable people see you as an extremist, and I don’t think you’re the most appropriate guy to teach that class. My, my guess is—Kevin Barrett: I don’t think you’re the most appropriate guy to be on the airwaves spewing your venom.Jonathan Adampants: And the professor got it right. You can see the look on his face. He says, “spewing your venom.” That’s exactly what he’s doing. The problem is that you can’t get all of this out in an interview. For example, say I was on an interview like this. They would be doing all the same things to me. All I would be doing is calling attention to everything he’s doing, and then he would sit there and argue with me. Nothing would ever get discussed. This is how they take advantage of people. Look how long it’s taken me. Do you know this clip is only like two minutes long normally? But just to describe two very short minutes of media to you, look how long this is taking. That’s the problem. That’s why I haven’t done it before. Because I can sit here and explain it to you. But you need to open up your eyes so you can see it for yourself, because it all happens way too quickly. If you try to explain something that happens in a three second period, if you’re not educated on that, if you’re not aware of it, it will go by way too fast before you can bring somebody up to speed to understand what’s going on. This is why I had to break it down for you. But I still can’t do this with everything I see because this is everywhere. This is common. This is always going on. And it just you need to educate yourself, but you need to become aware again. Dual meaning neuro-linguistic programming, gesturing association of concepts and beliefs to link them, anchor them in your mind to misdirect your perception, your beliefs, and your ability to perceive reality in general.Kevin Barrett: I don’t think you’re the most appropriate guy to be on the airwaves spewing your venom. I think you guys should be taken off the airwaves.Hannity: Because you want to silence the conservatives.Colmes: We don’t want to silence anybody. You teach, we’ll do Hannity and Colmes. Thank you. Professor.Jonathan Adampants: “We don’t want to silence anybody.” That’s exactly what they have just done. Though you heard a lot of speaking going on, nothing was able to get out into the open. They completely took control of this poor man. And he’s brave, okay, to get out there, lose his job and to speak the truth. And they hound him like bees. They’re using techniques that are hidden, that are sorcery, they’re of sorcery in their nature. They’re hypnotic. They’re using negative energy, manipulative techniques, childish argument techniques. And so you’ve seen a lot of talking, but nothing got out into the open. And you see how nervous they made him. Why? Because he had to keep dealing with their techniques and he couldn’t express the truth. And this is how anybody who tries to get on the media to speak the truth is manipulated. And that’s why most don’t even bother. They don’t bother, because they would just get into an argument. I mean, what’s the point? The expert that I’ve seen at this is Stephen Colbert. He was one of the biggest disinformation agents out there. He’ll get somebody in for an interview and just completely distract, disrupt, discredit. And there is no interview. That’s what I call Stephen Colbert’s interviews. They’re not interviews. They’re Stephen Colbert using techniques to distract and discombobulate, basically. So this is why you don’t get the truth in the media. Even if people do get a chance at airtime, they will be interrupted, misdirected, hypnotic suggestions to the audience that are watching it. People that know the truth won’t even try. They won’t even try to go on the mainstream media and people that do, it ends up like this. So until that is addressed, then nothing will ever be told on mainstream media. But what you can learn from this: Don’t watch TV. Okay? I hope this helps. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkAttorneys and public banking advocates Ellen Brown and Earl Staelin explain why reforming our system of money creation could help end war and ensure universal prosperity. Ellen Brown is the founder of the Public Banking Institute and the author of a dozen books and hundreds of articles including a new series on “AI Abundance.”Earl Staelin is the founder of the Rocky Mountain Public Banking Institute. Note that the Public Banking Institute will be hosting a conference October 21-24 in Philadelphia.Excerpts:Kevin Barrett: Maybe the banks will have a harder time selling the wars if there’s universal prosperity, right? Scrambling for limited resources has been a big part of how they sell wars. Ellen, since you wrote the article series on AI Abundance, you can introduce the topic. Keep in mind that my audience is skeptical of AI.Ellen Brown: Yeah, yeah, so is mine. It turned out I got a huge amount of pushback. I got hundreds of comments.Elon Musk said (that AI will bring universal prosperity, necessitating a very high Universal Basic Income.) That is what prompted me to write about it. I’ve written different times that the Treasury should issue our dollars directly the way Abraham Lincoln did in the Civil War when the British bankers were going to charge around 30 percent interest on loans to finance the war. And one of his advisors said, "you don’t have to borrow. You can just issue the money.” It’s in the Constitution: “Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof.” And it’s what the American colonists did. According to Benjamin Franklin it was the reason for the great prosperity of the American colonists until the King James required that they—well, the Bank of England leaned on the King to say “you can’t let them do that, issue their own money.” And according to some experts, that was the major trigger for the Revolutionary War was that suddenly we had no money. Before that, our money was paper money issued directly by the colonies. So anyway, we can do that. So Elon Musk predicted that in 10 years, GDP in the US would be 10 times what it is now.And meanwhile, we have this problem of AI taking over all the jobs. So you have people without jobs, so they don’t have incomes. And then you have a huge amount of supply. So instead of too much money chasing too few goods, which is how we get inflation, price inflation, you’ve got too little money chasing too many goods. And so he said we would need to do not just the universal basic income for everyone, but a universal high income just so we’d have enough money out there to buy all the goods that we’d be producing.So I thought, well, where are they going to get this money? You know, they can’t get it from taxes, obviously. People have been talking about UBI for years, and it’s always, well, where are you going to get the money? You can’t afford it.But where you could get the money is just have the government issue it directly, and it would not be inflationary, because in this case, you’re fighting deflation. You’re trying to bring the money supply up to match this amazing productivity. So that’s what triggered me to write about it in the first place….And then people said, well, what about this? What about that? So I wound up writing five articles in that series. And the last one was about work. The objection has been that work is where we get meaning. And where would we find meaning in our lives if we didn’t have to go out to work?Well, of course, sure, work is where we find meaning, but it could be our own work. All us retired people, like me, I’m not sitting around doing nothing. I’m writing. Or maybe you’re not a writer or maybe you’re not an artist, but you’re a grandmother or whatever. You could spend all this time with your family that you didn’t have before. People do productive things with their spare time. They don’t necessarily just go on Facebook and scroll and scroll. I mean, maybe they do that after their 50-hour-a-week job because they’re so exhausted, they just need some escape.So they turn on the TV, sure. But if you had total free time, you would do productive things. So I cited a lot of evidence of that. And then there were other objections. Where are you going to get the power? I went into all that.But that was the basic thrust. That’s what got me embroiled in all these things about AI. And then, of course, people just don’t like Elon Musk just because he’s a trillionaire. People don’t like people with a lot of money.Kevin Barrett: So in a future of unlimited prosperity like that, there’d be seemingly no reason for war, right? Wars are about resources. And even today, we see what this war on Iran is largely about dominating the resources of West Asia and the way they flow through the Strait of Hormuz. So if we could kick back and not worry so much about the resources and wealth, life could get better in a lot of ways, including less war, theoretically. So Earl, let’s talk about that, the relationship between banking, monetary systems, and wars.Earl Staelin: Yeah, there’s a very interesting book about World War I by McGregor and Dougherty. It cameout about 10, 11 years ago, 2015, I believe. And they showed how Britain had planned to provoke Germany to start a war for about 15 years or so before World War I started.And the reason for that was that Germany was growing faster and was going to surpass them and overtake them in industry, commerce, even in shipping. And arguably, the reason for that is that Germany had a system of public banks, city-owned public banks in 1,500 cities, as well as a national bank that was publicly owned, and their lending was for local, small, medium-sized businesses. The national one included large businesses, but they were productive. They created many jobs. And that, of course, grew their economy and was why they were growing much faster than England, which had been concentrating its banks into a smaller number of very large banks. And, of course, the U.S. has moved in the same direction since then, even more. The goal was to provoke Germany to start World War I. And that was so that they could get Germany in a war with Russia and in a war on its eastern front against France and eventually England, and, they hoped, the United States, which they of course eventually brought in. But it stemmed from this banking situation and the discrepancy between an economy run by a few large banks versus one with many small banks that are locally creating businesses that are more creative, that create more jobs and more prosperity.And we have that situation today, by the way. Now, what is the incentive for large banks for war? Well,first of all, they prefer to lend to large corporations. They’re large themselves. It’s easier for them. Economies of scale. They make more money, more profit. Wars have some guaranteed profitability that is very appealing to large banks.One is that the spending is very high for weapons of all kinds. The spending is unlimited. The government guarantees repayment that may be backed by bonds and taxes and other things. The banks may even lend to both sides. The loser guarantees payment of both sides’ debt. And of course, weapons are a form of planned obsolescence. They’re destroyed and they have to be replaced. And then after the war, it creates business for contractors to rebuild. So it’s an endless source of income for banks that fund the many corporations. And gas and oil use is increased during a war, chemical bombs of various types, chemical warfare. All of the weapons, planes, ships, submarines, tanks and missiles, drones, radar, satellite imagery, all kinds of electronic weapons, bioweapons, it even gets into big pharma. It’s just unlimited. It’s a bonanza. And what happens when war is over or if there isn’t war or fear of war is that defense contractors are afraid their money is going to dry out. And the same thing happens to the banks. So that’s a summary of the incentives. I began my legal career working for a large corporation where we did antitrust law, and I became very familiar with how the incentive and duty of the corporation is, as they see it, to maximize profit.We could by statute say, well, you also have a duty not to damage the public interest, and things like that. But that’s basically the background. We have an excellent quote from Carol Quigley. He was aprofessor at Georgetown University for many years in international affairs, and he wrote about this power of the big banks and elite powers over government. Here’s a quote from his book, Tragedy and Hope: “The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” And war, of course, plays into that as being their most profitable way to make a really big profit. Another excellent source, of course, is Smedley Butler, who was our most decorated Marine general ever, who wrote the book War Is a Racket after many years of defending the United States in foreign countries—or actually aggressively pursuing wars in foreign countries. He wrote that these wars were not about national security, they were about protecting and fighting for corporate interests of the United States, very often against international law, and provoking fights and effectively stealing resources of other countries. So that’s kind of the overall picture. And now we’ve got the United States, England and most countries in Western Europe dominated by large banks. The ECB, the European Central Bank, is like that. They profit from loans to large corporations. They profit from war. They are not supporting the real prosperous economy, the domestic economy that serves the needs of the people. And as a result, the countries that are doing that, and countries with publicly owned banks like Russia, Iran is another, China is another big one, that are devoting their lending to productive purposes and not to inflate real estate or stocks that is nonproductive, but for productive purposes, are growing their economies much faster. And countries that are dominated by these big banks that are seeking profit from asset inflation and not production, or from weapons and war, cannot compete with these countries that have a lot of public banks. And so the role of public banks in helping prevent wars can be very, very significant. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link FFWN linkThe American Intifada picked up steam this week in Michigan, where anti-Zionist Democrat Abdul El-Sayed defeated pro-Israel incumbent congresstraitor Haley Stevens, who had taken $32 million from AIPAC and outspent El-Sayed ten-to-one. Elsewhere in Michigan, another anti-Zionist congressional challenger, Donovan McKinney, knocked off AIPAC-owned incumbent Shri Thanedar, while pro-Palestinian William Lawrence beat two pro-Israel Democrats. Meanwhile in Ann Arbor, American Intifada fellow traveler Yousef Rabhi defeated the incumbent mayor. If this keeps up, the state that gave us Henry Ford (who was obviously ahead of his time) will soon be declared liberated territory. I’m starting to wonder whether I even needed to cross the sea from Wisconsin to Morocco, when I could have just crossed the lake and applied for citizenship in the Islamic Republic of Michigan.But it wasn’t just left-wing anti-Zionists who had a big week. In Maine, Tucker Carlson threw a party…a third party, actually. Guests included Thomas Massie (R-KY) Marjorie Taylor Greene (ex-R-GA) and Joe Kent, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center. All four are MAGA Republicans who, for some odd reason, didn’t like the idea of America’s narcissist-in-chief, Donald J. Trump, getting Zio-blackmailed into launching a disastrous forever war on Iran.Though Tucker’s new third party obviously leans conservative, it’s already picking up support from the liberals over at the Young Turks:If an anti-Epstein Party party emerges on the center-right, while the Democrats keep sliding to the left, 2028 could look different from past presidential election years. It’s conceivable that this election might actually mean something, and that there could be a potential winner worth voting for. My cynicism about American presidential elections—I have never voted for a major party candidate in any presidential election—might be put to the test. If it came down to a three-way race of Tucker/Massie vs. Mamdani vs. JD Vance, I would be facing the unprecedented situation of not actively disliking the candidates with a chance to win.*That’s the best-case scenario, anyway. The worst-case one would be along the lines of “Iran war goes south, worst-ever economic collapse followed by nuclear exchange, Constitution suspended and Trump declared president-for-life with AI Antichrist waiting in the wings.” Second-worst would be a milder catastrophe followed by an Epstein-class mainstream Democrat or Republican fronting for the AI Antichrist.Bilzerian Kicks Bloated Kosher KeisterAnd speaking of candidates I actually wouldn’t mind voting for, how about Dan Bilzerian? He has been pummeling “fat Jew” Randy Fine in their Republican primary battle in Florida’s 6th congressional district. Fine, an even more disgusting antisemitic caricature than Rabbi Schmuley “Kosher Sex Toys & Genocide” Boteach, has:*Repeatedly called for nuking, starving, and completely destroying Gaza.*Called Palestinians “demons” who must be “put down by any means necessary.”*Said Muslims must be “destroyed.”Bilzerian’s positions resonate with Unz Review readers as well as the editor. He sees an Israeli hand in the JFK coup and 9/11 and denounces Jewish supremacism. Wikipedia’s summary of Bilzerian’s “antisemitic” transgressions should endear him to truth-seekers:Bilzerian has generated controversy for a series of antisemitic statements against Jews, Judaism, and Israel as early as 2010. He has gone on record to falsely claim that the Jewish people “perpetrated” the Holodomor in Soviet Ukraine, assassinated John F. Kennedy in 1963 and Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, created the “transgender nonsense”, and orchestrated the September 11 attacks and the Iraq War, among other false assertions and antisemitic conspiracy theories.[36]Commentators have noted the apparent contradiction between Bilzerian’s self-described partial Jewish ancestry and his repeated promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, and claims of Jewish supremacy and media control.[citation needed]In 2024, Bilzerian condemned Israel and expressed support for Hamas amidst the Gaza war, referring to it as a “resistance organization” and calling its former leader Yahya Sinwar “a hero.”[37]In a 2024 interview with Piers Morgan, Bilzerian argued that Judaism “promotes supremacy and rape, and steals from other people as long as they’re not Jewish“[38] and that “most of the problems today are caused by Jewish supremacy“. He also falsely claimed that all Israeli Jews are “Eastern European Ashkenazi Jews“ and “don’t have actual Hebrew DNA“.[37]Bilzerian further argued that Jews “control the media“.[36] He also promoted Holocaust denial, saying that “I would bet my entire net worth that it was less than six million.”[37] Bilzerian followed up on this claim by stating that Jews “killed more Christians than six million” and that “they’ve basically invented genocide“.[37]All of those “antisemitic” positions are defensible, and most are spot-on correct. So if Dan Bilzerian knocked out Randy Fine with a right hook to the fat Jew’s nose, it would send a powerful signal that American electoral politics are not quite as hopeless as they have heretofore appeared. The Florida 6th District primary is August 18th, a week from this Tuesday. If Bilzerian somehow wins, the optimism kindled by the likes of Abdul El-Sayed and Tucker Carlson will blaze up into a roaring patriotic bonfire.——*I know I should hate JD Vance for letting Peter “Antichrist” Thiel launch his career, and assume he’s been compromised on the path to becoming VP, but haven’t quite made that leap yet. Maybe I should write an article headlined “Is It Conceivable That JD Vance Has Not Been Compromised?” My cynical friends will all laugh and assume it’s a rhetorical question.https://www.bilzerianforcongress.com This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

We interrupt this program with a special announcement: Get ready for tomorrow’s False Flag Weekly News!My article The World Cup WAS Rigged for Argentina's "Zionist" Thugs got a lot of attention and 300+ comments at Unz.com. Since the two finalists were Spanish-speaking countries—and since Maria Poumier surprised me by sending a Spanish translation of my article—I decided to inaugurate the KevinAlMaghribi Substack with that piece. What the heck is the KevinAlMaghribi Substack? Well, since I’m Morocco-based, I thought I’d occasionally reach out in local languages for conversations with local people. The video above is my introduction in Darija, otherwise known as Moroccan Arabic.Why is my first post in Spanish, which I’m not so good at, instead of Darija or French? Aside from the World Cup article, there has been a lot of interest in the Spanish enclave of Ceuta, Spain-Morocco relations, and so on. It just seemed like a good time to brush up on my conspiracy Spanish. Now you can brush up on yours too, by reading: This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkThe great Britain-based broadcaster Richie Allen reached out to me here in Morocco to ask why 60,000 Moroccans tried to illegally enter Ceuta, the Spanish city on the Moroccan coast. I offered a short answer, having already written a long one. We also discussed several other topics, including claims of “Christian genocide” in Nigeria…Excerpt:Kevin Barrett: I wrote an article about it a couple of days ago, which people can find at my Substack. And then it’s also posted at the UNZ Review, which is unz.com. And in that article, which I wrote pretty hastily after the news broke, I said, well, it kind of quacks like a Zionist. It kind of talks and walks like a Zionist. It’s probably an Israeli op to punish Spain for its very heroic anti-genocide stance. And the reason I say this is because when something like this happens, you ask yourself, well, who benefits?But first you ask, is it unusual? Is this something that could happen naturally? And in this case, it seems a little too big to have happened naturally. The number of people involved, 60,000 people, was far, far more than the only time something like this had happened in the past in 2021, when 8,000 people stormed Ceuta. But that was when the Moroccan government had openly pulled off their security and announced on the front pages that we’re pulling off our security. And that sent 8,000 people there. Well, this time, 60,000 people just suddenly swarmed to Ceuta. This is incredible. Where did that come from? Well, it came from social media. There was a massive social media push to get those people to Ceuta. And on social media, these messages were spread immediately and boosted and promoted, saying that “you can go now easily, you’ll get in easily, and they won’t send you back, and they’ll give you amnesty, and you’ll have Spanish citizenship.” So people were flooded with those messages. And if you ask the search engines or the mainstream AI, they’ll tell you, oh, it was just an organic social media craze: young people copying other young people doing stupid things—which does happen on social media, but not to that extent. So I think that the fact that the Zionist entity or Israel basically owns the two main social media channels used in Morocco, which are TikTok, which was recently forced sold to Larry Ellison, so it could be controlled by Israel and they could try to get control of the Israel problem that it had, and Zuckerberg and his Facebook social media thing, Instagram.Those are the two that are used in Morocco, and the Israelis own and control both of them. And that was the brainwashing push that got 60,000 people to Ceuta. Israel is furious at Spain right now because Pedro Sanchez, the Prime Minister, has been pushing back against genocide. They banned shipments to Israel years ago, and now they’ve even banned any even overflight or use of their bases or anything in this Israeli war on Iran that’s being pushed through the captured United States government.Morocco doesn’t gain from this. The people accusing Morocco are wrong. It’s being reported in Morocco as a horrible disgrace, a national scandal. It’s killing us PR-wise as we get ready for our 2030 World Cup in conjunction with Spain, right? Spain wasn’t doing anything that bad that Morocco needed to punish them for. You know, Spain did open up a gas line to Algeria, but that’s relatively minor. So no, Morocco didn’t do it. Israel did.Richie Allen: And Ellis Gjivory, who writes for Middle East Eye, which I find pretty useful some of the time. I tried to cross-reference many of the claims… He writes, does Ellis, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, he wrote yesterday, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to UN in New York, wrote on X last week, with barely concealed glee: “Spain, which never misses an opportunity to lecture Israel, has declared a state of emergency in Ceuta following the crisis over its immigration policy.” So that’s hardly... Diplomatic Skills 101. That’s pretty shitty, you might say. Excuse my language. But it’s also inaccurate, because Spain did not declare a state of emergency in Ceuta. So while Danny Danon’s triumphalist post isn’t a smoking gun necessarily that Israel was behind it, if you add it to two or three more facts and some of the stuff you spoke about which is true – Yeah, it’s not much of a stretch to think that Israel may have been behind it, the social media campaign, and that it may have indeed been an attempt to embarrass Spain because of the stance that Spain has taken. Kevin, I don’t know if you’ll have seen this on social media, but a video has gone viral of a restaurateur in Spain telling a group of Israeli tourists basically to sling their hooks or feck off that he’s not going to serve them because of the genocide. Now, whether that’s right or wrong is debatable, but there’s certainly a real anti-Israel, anti-genocide feeling in Spain and it’s coming from the top down, right?Kevin Barrett: Absolutely, yeah. And the Israelis would love to get rid of Sanchez and try to push in one of these right-wing, anti-Muslim, sort of racist, pro-white, nativist kinds of governments. And so they’re using this to try to beat up the Sanchez government and hopefully from their point of view to replace it. So it’s not just to punish Spain, but it’s also to try to push towards replacing the current government of Spain. But it probably won’t work because the Spanish people, as you say, are on board. With the anti-genocide sentiment, and they’re smart enough to figure this kind of thing out. You know, back after 9-11, when there were a bunch of these follow-up false flags, which we would agree were very likely done by what we would call the Middle East War Party. And, you know, you and I might disagree to what extent that is mainly Israel, or does it include an element of American imperialists? But in any case, the train bombing in Spain, the Madrid train bombing in 2002, I think, That was clearly a false flag by basically the same people that did 9-11 for the same reason. They were pushing to get Europe lined up for the upcoming invasion of Iraq on behalf of Israel to destroy Iraq as one of those seven countries and five countries. And so they blew up these trains in Spain, and the Spanish people reacted the exact opposite from what the programmers had expected. They actually ended up voting in So maybe that will happen again.Richie Allen: It’s interesting you mentioned the Madrid bombings of 04, because I tend to agree, I should really push back, but I’m not going to today…Full transcript available at KevinBarrett.substack.com. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkDr. Gideon Polya, the author of US-Imposed Post-9/11 Muslim Holocaust & Muslim Genocide and other books, discusses Patrick O’Carroll’s “The Arab Holocaust” (posted below). The interview begins with, and focuses on, the Gaza genocide. Dr. Polya argues that the official Gaza death count of 73,381 murdered since October 2023, more than half of whom are women and children, is far too low, and that a more realistic figure is over 800,000. Gideon Polya: The key point is that the perpetrators, who are typically Westerners, ignore deaths from deprivation. When they actually bother to mention how many people have actually died in their endless colonial wars, they only talk of violent deaths. And, of course, in wars, people are not going to go around and pick up the pieces and actually determine how many people we killed. And so already the violent deaths are underestimated. But then they totally ignore the horrendous reality of deaths from imposed deprivation. And the ratio of deaths from deprivation to violent deaths ranges from about three in the Iraqi war and up to 16 in the Afghan war. And various epidemiologists published in the top medical journal, The Lancet, have what they call “conservatively” estimated the ratio should be about four. So I can strain your mental arithmetic with a very simple calculation. A team of epidemiologists published in The Lancet estimated that the violent deaths that are reported by the Palestinian Authority of Health in Gaza, at the moment they say it's 73,000 deaths. However, a team of statisticians and epidemiologists have estimated that it's more like 175,000 violent deaths. And they've then conservatively assumed that there were four times that number of nonviolent deaths. And that means 700,000. Four times 175,000 is 700,000 nonviolent deaths, for a total of 875,000 deaths from violence and deprivation. Yet the world overwhelmingly reports 73,000 deaths. It's absolutely extraordinary undercounting. And Ralph Nader, a very famous American analyst, has called out this horrendous undercounting of mortality in the Gaza genocide. But that's the world we live in.Dr. Gideon Polya, a Melbourne-based biochemist, writer, humanitarian activist, and artist, is a world leader in comparative holocaust and genocide research. He descends from a prominent Hungarian Jewish family that was decimated by murderous ethnic cleansing during World War II. Nonetheless he cannot travel to the state of Queensland to retrieve his birth certificate due to the possibility of arrest and prosecution for opposing the genocide of Palestine.——The Arab HolocastBy Patrick O’CarrollNote: The latter table is also available as a non-OCR image here: https://ibb.co/b5ckkrHr.The Arab Holocaust began in 1915, with the WW1 Blockade of the Levant, which was ordered by Churchill as first “lord” of the admiralty, and aided by France. Then, Zionist Ottoman Turkey, led by crypto-Jews styling themselves “Young Turks” or Kemalists, joined the blockade. The Synagogue of Satan (”Team Antichrist”) always intended the Antichrist State of Israel as the venue for the reign of the Antichrist, so the REAL goal of the WW1 Blockade of the Levant was to genocide the Mid-East Arabs, so as to make way for the Jewish “Super-Race”.#1 PALESTINIAN HOLOCAUST IN 1915-2022 (death-toll 2.214 million)Jewish-Australian author Dr Gideon Polya describes what he calls the Palestinian Holocaust. For 1915-2022 Polya’s analysis outlines Palestinian population-losses due to violent conflict and long-term deprivation (i.e. deaths caused by malnutrition, lack of healthcare, poverty, and deliberate supply-chain blockages):1915-18 (WW1): Polya estimates 0.1 million Palestinian deaths (14% of the total population) from deprivation by the forced Palestinian Famine, which was part of the Zionist WW1 Blockade of the Levant in 1915-18.1918-48 (British Mandate): Polya estimates 0.65 million avoidable Palestinian deaths, drawing a comparison to death-rates in British-ruled India during this thirty-year era.1948 (the “Nakba”, Arabic for disaster): The NAKBA featured minor extermination, but major expulsion, i.e. the forcible expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians (about 60% of the total indigenous population) by the destruction of 500 villages to enable the establishment of the Antichrist State of Israel. Mainstream historians estimate that about 14,000(13.000-15,000) Palestinians died violently in the 1948 NAKBA, which was a major step in creating the Antichrist State of Israel. The Zionists expelled Palestinians to the following “havens”: West Bank 280,000; Gaza Strip 190,000; Lebanon 100,000; Syria 75,000; Jordan 70,000; and elsewhere 85,000.1950-2005: A further estimated 1.35 million avoidable non-Israeli Palestinian deaths from deprivation.2005-22: A further estimated 0.1 million avoidable non-Israeli Palestinian deaths from deprivation, including both occupied and exiled Palestinians.#2 GAZA HOLOCAUST 1, FROM OCT 2023 UNTIL APR 2025 (death-toll 1.1 million)After the false-flag attacks of 7 Oct 2023 (planned near “Sukkot”, Feast of Tabernacles), and until 30 Apr 2025, the Zionists genocided a total of 1.1 million Arabs in the Gaza Holocaust. This death-toll is calculated as follows:[A] In mid-2025, Dr Gideon Polya and Professor Richard Hill calculated that the total death-toll for Gaza from 7 Oct 2023 until 30 Apr 2025 was at least 680,000. This is based on all the data collected by British medical journal LANCET, with infants under five years of age accounting for a massive 380,000 (56 percent) of this toll. Sources:https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjKJUBNNXyDkTdujvp9Iqo0zFtTG_fq8KwGFllLUxuFpq-BK4xvv1OIk09ietzZLPzhwg&usqp=CAUhttps://medium.com/@hrnews1/report-estimated-death-toll-in-gaza-hits-680-000-bbc2d0e8a96c[B] In addition, Harvard verified that the ZioNazis had “disappeared” 400,000 Arabic children from Gaza:https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2025/06/29/harvard-study-israel-disappeared-almost-400000-palestinians-in-gaza-half-of-them-children/These “disappeared” children are the biggest “profit center” because the ZioNazis traffic the children’s organs, and also traffic the children themselves, selling them on to the highest bidder for child-rape and human-sacrifice.[C] We must also add 20,000 Arabs “buried under the rubble”, as confirmed by the following article:https://english.elpais.com/international/2025-10-13/gazans-search-for-their-dead-under-the-rubble-its-a-tragedy-for-which-there-are-no-words.htmlSo, if we add [A], [B], and [C], we get a total death-toll of 1.1 million for the period 7 Oct 2023 until 30 Apr 2025.Note too: If we ignore the 400,000 Arabic children “disappeared” by the ZioNazis, we get 36,267 deaths per monthfrom 7 Oct 2023 until 30 Apr 2025 (total 18.75 months) from the raw LANCET death-toll of 680,000.#3 GAZA HOLOCAUST 2, FROM 1 MAY 2025 UNTIL 28 FEB 2026 (death-toll 0.36 million)Because the Antichrist State of Israel was genociding 36,000 Palestinian Arabs per month in Gaza up until 30 Apr 2025, it is safe to extrapolate a further total of 360,000 Palestinian Arabs of Gaza genocided for the 10 months from 1 May 2025 until 28 Feb 2026, when ZioNazi Trump launched the Iran War for his boss, ZioNazi Netanyahu.#4 IRAQI HOLOCAUST OF 1990-2026 (death-toll 5 million)By 2023, Jewish-Australian author Dr Gideon Polya calculated that the Zionists had genocided 5 million Arabs in the Iraqi Holocaust after 1990, giving the separate totals [1], [2], and [3] below in this 2023 article by him: https://www.globalresearch.ca/iraq-invasion-20th-anniversary-five-million-dead-iraqi-holocaust-1990-onwards/5812642[1] 1.9 million: 1.9 million genocided in 1990-2003: 0.2 million genocided in the First Gulf War of 1990-91, and 1.7 million genocided during the period of sanctions in 1990-2003, which were led by the USA but ordered by the Antichrist State of Israel. On 12 May 1996, ZioNazi Madeleine Albright defended Zionist genocide for 1990-96 on a “60 Minutes” segment with Lesley Stahl, stating: “We think the price is worth it” to achieve “policy goals” against [CIA Agent] Saddam Hussein. But, for 1996-2003, the same sanctions caused a vastly larger death-toll.[2] 2.7 million Iraqis were genocided in the Second Iraq War of 2003-11. There were 1.5 million violent deaths in this war. Polya cites data from the UN Population Division that indicate that there were 1.2 million more avoidable Iraqi deaths from war-imposed deprivation in this period. These two figures sum to 2.7 million in total.[3] 0.4 million Iraqis were genocided after 2011, i.e. after the Iraq War of 2003-11 was declared “over”. The USA ostensibly withdrew from Iraq in 2011 but returned in force to the region with a vengeance in 2012, leading to about 0.1 million violent Iraqi deaths in the devastated Mosul (40,000 killed) and in the twice-US-demolished Fallujah. UN data also indicate about 0.3 million avoidable Iraqi deaths from deprivation in the period 2011-20.In total, [1], [2], and [3] sum to 5 million; that is Dr Gideon Polya’s total death-toll estimate for the Iraqi Holocaust.Polya’s estimate corroborated: Independently, the following article estimated that somewhere between 2.4 and 3.4 million died in Iraq in 2003-18: https://popularresistance.org/iraq-death-toll-15-years-after-invasion-more-than-2-million/If we take a median estimate of 3.1 million from the latter article, and then add the 1.9 million genocided during 1990-2003 (the total for [1] above), this also yields a total of 5 million, thus decisively corroborating Polya’s very conservative estimate that the Zionists genocided 5 million Arabs in the Iraqi Holocaust of 1990-2026.#5 SYRIAN HOLOCAUST (1915-2026) (death-toll 0.86 million)During the WW1 Levant Blockade, the Forced Syrian Famine genocided 0.2 million Syrians (a very conservative estimate). In the Zionist-triggered Syrian Civil War of 2011-24, the death-toll was 0.66 million.#6 LEBANESE HOLOCAUST (1915-2026) (death-toll 0.415 million)During the WW1 Levant Blockade, the Mount Lebanon Holocaust genocided 220,000 Lebanese Arabs.The Lebanese Civil War (1975-90) had about 150,000 fatalities.45,000 more died in: the 1982 Lebanon War; the 2006 War; and the 2026 attacks by the Antichrist State of Israel.#7 YEMENI HOLOCAUST (death-toll 0.3 million)0.3 million Yemenis were genocided since 1962, including between 100,000 and 200,000 in the Zionist-triggered North Yemen Civil War (1962-70).#8 LIBYAN HOLOCAUST (death-toll 0.1415 million)Italian colonial authorities under MI5+6 Agent Benito Mussolini genocided 60,000 Libyans in the Libyan Genocide of 1929-34. Separately, they genocided a further 50,000 Libyans in the Second Italo-Senussi War of 1923-32.The 2011 Civil War and subsequent conflicts (2014-20) resulted in at least 30,000 deaths. The ZioNazi NATO “alliance” also killed about 1,500 Libyans in its air-strikes of 2011.OTHER HOLOCAUSTS IN ARAB NATIONSThe above table shows the Holocausts in four other Arab nations since 1948, where Zionist-triggered wars genocided 31,000 Egyptians, 20,000 Jordanians, 15,000 Omanis, and 1,000 Kuwaitis.RELATEDThis article on Henry Makow’s website:https://henrymakow.com/2026/06/patrick-ocarroll--the-Arab-Holocaust.html This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkPress TV interview Monday, Aug. 3Excerpt:Kevin Barrett: The higher gas prices, and the economic slowdown, which everybody kind of vaguely senses, is going to get a lot worse, as I mentioned earlier, because of the effect gradually going through the pipeline. That's turned the political discussion now very strongly in an anti-Trump direction. Trump's polling now is worse than any other president in modern history since polling began. Bush Jr. had the world record for the worst polling, the most unfavorable rating of any U.S. president, after his failed policies in Afghanistan and Iraq. But now Trump has broken that record by a substantial margin. This war was the most unpopular war at its beginning ever fought in American history since polls have been taken, and it's gotten even less and less popular ever since. So Trump is facing a catastrophic situation right now as he goes into the November elections that could bring a Democratic majority into the American Congress on the back of this economic disruption. And that Democratic majority very likely will investigate some of the things that the other guest was very perceptively talking about. Trump's corruption is just off the charts. American presidents have been corrupt before, but Trump has taken it to a new level by orders of magnitude. As the guest said, Trump has issued blood-curdling threats that made it look like we're on the brink of World War III—and he always does that at the end of the trading week. And then on Monday, he says he's been talking to his imaginary Iranian friends. He calms the markets. The markets then become extremely unrealistically optimistic. And this up and down in the markets can be played, and huge amounts of money can be made with put options. Trump has various ways of gambling on what the markets are going to do, and Trump has the insider knowledge of what the markets are going to do because he knows which weekend he's going to issue his threats, and how hard he's going to walk it back on Monday. And then as we heard from the other guest, he's actually selling insider information on Truth Social! So when the Democrats take back the Congress, they're going to have an easy time putting Trump in prison. They had a harder time putting him in prison before, between his two terms. But this time it's going to be easy. So that's why he's caught between the rock and hard place, and he has no good options. If he goes ahead and gets out of the war, the only way to do that is to honor the MOU, basically surrender to Iran. That's not going to look too good politically. And the Zionists who dominate the American political system will throw money at his opponents and harm him. But if he doesn't, then things just keep getting worse the way they've been getting worse for him over the past several months. So he's destroyed his presidency with this evil and strategically monumentally stupid war on Iran.Full transcript available by clicking "transcript” at my Substack. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link Q: What do you do if you run out of standoff munitions, but can’t drop gravity bombs because it’s too dangerous? A: Drop F-bombs!That appears to be Trump’s Iran war strategy. Screaming front page headlines reported last week: Trump says US will ‘beat the f*cking sh*t’ out of Iran after attack on bases in Jordan.If multi-megaton foul language could win wars, Donald Trump would have reduced the IRGC to quivering jelly: “Please, oh please, Mr. Trump, we beg of you, do not drop any more of those nasty foul-mouthed F-bombs on our poor little virgin ears! We will do whatever you say! Just don’t use any more bad words!”Unfortunately for Trump, the Iranians remain uncowed by obscene, scatological tirades. Who could have predicted Iran could withstand the most vicious vulgarity, the most atrocious expletives, the profanest and most vulgar filth that America’s rude, crude, and lewd president could dump on them?It’s one thing for Iran to endure a vicious surprise attack, launched under cover a fake breakthrough in negotiations, that murdered much of their top leadership, including the revered Supreme Leader, along with 168 Minab schoolgirls…and then remain strong, and even vaunt escalation dominance, throughout almost six months of warfare against an enemy that outspends them militarily 100-to-1. It’s quite another that the Iranians can fail to surrender to Trump’s out-of-control obscenity.If you found the above passages even mildly amusing, you understand the obvious: When Trump loses his cool and unleashes foul and/or blood-curdling threats, fondly imagining that such behavior will intimidate his enemies into compliance, he is exhibiting hilariously narcissistic cluelessness. The Baboon-in-Chief apparently doesn’t realize that losing control and lashing out is the behavior of a loser, not a winner. Screaming vain expletives at the sky is an admission of defeat: “G**** bleepity bleeping bleeping bleep it! We LOST!”Trump’s expletives are reminiscent of pilots cursing as they crash. In 1977, seconds before another Boeing 747 slammed into his plane in a crash that killed 538 people, Pan Am captain Victor Grubbs yelled “Goddamn, that son of a b**ch is coming!" And in an even closer parallel to Trump’s F-bombs, an Air France 447 captain, seconds before his plane slammed belly-first into the Pacific Ocean, attempted to intimidate the ocean with “f***! We’re dead.” Needless to say, the ocean was no more intimidated by that outburst than Iran is cowed by Trump’s equally ineffectual F-bombs.Throwing a temper tantrum because you can’t get your way is the behavior of a two-year-old. And Trump is an overgrown baby, a case study in arrested development.After unloading on the Ayatollahs, Trump let up on Iran and started F-bombing his own national security team. According to NBC News, Don the Deranged “erupted” and “yelled expletives” at his aides because they “are unable to come to an agreement on the Iran war strategy.” Oh well. Maybe if he drops enough F-bombs on them they’ll think of something. At this point the best move for Trump would be to declare victory and hope the Iranians die laughing.And if those outbursts weren’t enough, on Wednesday Trump looked like he might get dragged out of a White House press conference by men in white coats, after rambling incoherently about grass and Star Wars.According to the Irish Star, “Donald Trump’s aides allegedly ‘rushed the press’ out of the Oval Office after one of his speeches raised concerns that ‘something was wrong.’” Trump “rambled about how his team were ‘changing all the grass in all the parks’ before bizarrely comparing grass to ‘human beings.” Before his aides leaped to shield Trump from view while others hustled the media out of the room, Trump had been serving up some very strange word salad:“Grass is like human beings. Grass is a life also. And we're changing. We're raking, cleaning and changing all of the parks. We don't have the tents anymore. We don’t have all the barbed wire up. We don’t have the wire up…“Within a few years, it will be rated the best airport in the country. So it’s going to be so efficient. Right now, it’s totally inefficient between the trams and the Star Wars thing that they go up. The Star Wars and elevated buses and nobody knows what’s going on. It’s a real mess.”Video link on XOh well, at least he didn’t F-bomb the grass and the Star Wars and the elevated buses.When we discussed Trump’s F-bombs on this week’s False Flag Weekly News, co-host E. Michael Jones had an interesting medical diagnosis:Kevin Barrett: Trump is in trouble. If he surrenders by actually implementing the terms of the MOU, that’s not going to look too good politically, and the Zionists will go crazy and kill him (politically). Maybe even literally. But if he doesn’t, if he keeps escalating like he’s threatening to do, then the world economy goes down the toilet and nobody’s going to vote for him, least of all the Catholics. And I don’t think Catholics like other things about him either, such as his potty mouth. He’s done this (waxed obscene) a number of times. The bleeping-bleephead-in-chief! But why? Well, because first, the U.S. and Iran have been trading strikes. The Iranians hit U.S. bases in Jordan. Trump was furious that the Iranians had the temerity to defend their country, so he resorted to foul language, screaming that he’s going to “beat the bleeping bleep out of Iran” after the attacks. Seems like this guy is a little bit out of control, doesn’t know what he’s doing, doesn’t have a lot of impulse control. E. Michael Jones: This is what I was talking about in terms of tertiary syphilis. I keep coming back to this. One of the symptoms, when it goes to the brain, is grandiosity. You have delusions of grandeur. And the other one is loss of control of speech. So which is it: narcissism or syphilis? That might make good topic for a debate between medical doctors and psychiatrists.But is Trump’s behavior spontaneous and authentic? Or are his foul-mouthed curses scripted, like the rants of professional wrestling heel threatening his opponent? My audience of conspiracy realists includes a few who think Trump’s apparent madness is all an act. According to one interpretation, the Deep State is using Trump’s crazy act as an extreme version of what Nixon and Kissinger called “the madman theory”: “If we can convince our enemies that we’re crazy enough to drop nuclear bombs on them, that will give us leverage!”If that’s the case, it won’t work on Iran any better than it worked on Vietnam. Trump comes across as desperate, not dangerous. And Iran is not afraid of being nuked. Its dominant ideology lionizes suffering for a good cause, even (especially) martyrdom. So even if Iranian leaders believed Trump was crazy enough to destroy much of West Asia’s energy and life-support infrastructure by inviting Iran to make the other side of the Gulf (and perhaps Occupied Palestine) uninhabitable, they would still resist Trump’s tyranny and die willingly as martyrs, taking the region and the world down with them. The cynical mercenary’s slogan “kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out” becomes, in the Iranian rendition, “if the tyrants kill us we will kill them too, and we’ll go to paradise while they go to hell.”And then there are the dwindling number of conspiracy types who still imagine Trump is some kind of genius playing multidimensional chess. Mike King, for example, still seems to think that Trump is basically giving the Zionists enough rope to hang themselves. And while it may very well work out that way—the Zionists are doing an excellent job of hanging themselves, thanks in part to Trump’s rope—I doubt very much that Trump is cackling to himself: “Bwa-ha-ha! If I let Bibi commit genocide, and attack Iran for him, and make him think I’m doing it because of those Epstein videos, we will lose the war, lose global public opinion, lose to Russia, lose to China, and the Zionist-run US empire with its crime base in Occupied Palestine will crumble, and Donald J. Trump will go down in history as the man who liberated planet Earth from the death grip of the demonic Epstein Class zionist oligarchs!”It’s an amusing idea. Mike King should make an AI movie featuring superhero Trump doing all those things.But please, Mike, leave out the foul language and make sure it’s rated G so future generations of kids can draw inspiration from it. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkIn today’s news…the bad news is that Trump’s potty mouth overflowed as he threatened to “beat the f*cking sh*t’ out of Iran.” The good news is that Trump appears to have defecated in his pants at Lindsey Graham’s funeral…which might conceivably render him slightly less full of sh*t.Below is a transcript of last night’s Press TV interview. Listen to the whole thing in the audio podcast file at the top of my Substack post, or watch the two-minute highlight video above.Press TV: Well, it’s 6 p.m. here in Tehran and time for the news review. Welcome. Now, let me give you a recap of what’s been happening and what we’re going to talk about. We have been watching Iran, what another Iran is saying, as long asU.S. aggression against Iran’s civil infrastructures Iran will retaliate. And that’s what Iran has done. And the continuation of that, IRGC hit U.S. Air Base and headquarters in Jordan. And now Mr. Trump is going mad and saying that I’m going to hit Iran hard again. Of course, it’s not the first time this has been going on. Iran is also asserting its control over the Strait of Hormuz and IRGC Navy, the Iranian Army. They are both asserting their control there. And almost every day they are stopping a number of ships that have been trying to cross the Strait without Iran’s authorization. And of course the same talks are ongoing between Iran and the two coastal states to come up with a certain mechanism for arrangements of transit. So this is what we are going to talk about. Allow me to introduce my guests. In our studio in Tehran, we have Khomeira Ahad. And also we have Kevin Barrett joining us from Saidia in Morocco. Okay, let’s begin with Tehran, if you allow me, Kevin, so that Khomeira will just bring us some information and give us some more details regarding the goings on recently. Khomeira, do you think this is going to further escalate? Or is it going to come down? Because, if you remember the way Mr. Trump usually puts it whenever he says he’s going to do something big time and then the next day or five minutes later he changes his mind, he said let’s turn to the negotiating table.Khomeira Ahad: No, but I think that it is going to escalate. And the things which we have been seeing in the last few months point to that, that there will be escalation again . We know that in the last 24 hours, the IRGC has pounded American bases in Jordan, and ballistic missiles have been fired. The IRGC has been quite clear in saying that as long as unlawful hostile actions are carried against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and as long as the threats continue against Iran, retaliation will follow. And that is what we saw in the last 24 hours. And now we are seeing again very inflammatory rhetoric fromTrump. He has said in the last couple of hours that he’s going to again hit Iran very badly. And that’s not something new, as you already mentioned. In the last few months, if not a year or two, we have been seeing Trump again and again issuing this type of inflammatory rhetoric. And Iran has said as long as this inflammatory rhetoric continues, these types of threats continue, the American side will face retaliation from Iran. As a result of these threats, we are also seeing an effect on the world markets. According to reports, the Brent oil prices have again risen. And if the escalation continues, then we are going to see a huge effect on the global markets.Press TV: Great. Okay. Turn to Morocco now. Kevin, good to have you with us. So how do you look at things? Where is this leading?Kevin Barrett: Well, people have remarked on the parallels between Trump’s repeated threats and then his equally delusional claims that he’s been negotiating with imaginary Iranians. “It is very close to an agreement.” He typically issues the threats usually towards the end of the week so that the weekend will come and they won’t disrupt the markets too much. And then he usually says he’s been negotiating with his imaginary Iranian friends and is close to a deal on Monday to try to calm the markets leading into the week. But this time he is ranting and raving with his bizarre extreme threats in the middle of the week. So who knows what that means? I don’t think that even Trump’s psychiatrist knows what Trump is really thinking. So rather than worrying about Trump’s psychology, which is pretty much a case for a whole team of psychiatrists specializing in narcissism and psychopathy, I think we should look at what’s actually going on on the ground, where the military shipments are going, and so on. And then, of course, what’s really going on with the energy trade, energy markets. In other words, the real-world factors here. And those real-world factors are that Trump and his administration are caught in what Robert Pape calls an escalation trap. They can’t get anything even remotely close to what they want. They have no idea really what they’re doing. They took Netanyahu’s advice and got into this ill-advised war, imagining that their goal was to somehow magically regime-change Iran and turn it into a Zionist colony. And that, of course, was never going to happen. And now they’re stuck with Iran inevitably coming out of this war stronger than it was before. And so they don’t want to accept that, but they have no answer for it. And the dynamics here, yes, the Americans are sending more material to the region, which means probable escalation. But what can they do? They’ve already bombed the targets they can bomb. Iran still has a lot more targets left for its missiles. The Americans have used up most of their standoff munitions, and the military is screaming at Trump that “it’s dangerously low. If China tries anything, we can’t do anything.” And so on. And so the overall situation right now is Groundhog Day. Trump is screaming and yelling again. He may do some more bombings. Iran has escalation dominance and will answer them. And we’re going to be back to square one until the Americans finally honor the MOU.Press TV: Speaking of energy markets that you also mentioned and rising oil prices and difficulties, you know, being actually a cause for many people, not only in the region, but maybe elsewhere across the planet. Trump is saying that Iran is doing this. This is collective punishment. But Hormuz did not used to be like this. It was calm. So who caused this? I mean, who’s to blame for this? Iran or President Trump’s policies and warmongering?Khomeira Ahad: You’re absolutely right about people saying that Hormuz was not like this and countries saying that it was all calm. Yeah, absolutely. It was all calm. The vessels were passing through the Strait of Hormuz without any effect. Iran was providing security without being paid. But who started it is the question which requires being pondered upon. And the answer is, it is America and Israel whose attack led to what we are seeing now, to what the world economy is facing the brunt of. And because of the aggression that was started by the United States and Israel on 28th February, Iran had to retaliate in this way. We have been seeing in the last few months, starting from the last year in June and continuing till now, what type of aggression has been exercised by America and Israel. The leader of the Islamic revolution, the martyred leader, was even assassinated. Hospitals attacked, schools attacked, 168 young children, primary schoolchildren killed in Minab. The list continues. The aggression: bridges, civilian infrastructure destroyed. And the world, apart from taking notice of what is being done to Iran, is talking about Iran restricting the passage shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. All the international laws have been violated by the United States and Israel, and this happened amidst negotiation. The first 12-day war, which happened last year in June, took place when Iran was undergoing negotiations with America, and it was the fifth or sixth round of negotiations. Next was the 40-day war, which started on 28th February with the assassination of the leader of the Islamic revolution. It happened when the third round of negotiations were taking place. And even the Omani foreign minister said that Iran was giving lots of concessions. So taking that near history into consideration, we know what type of aggression is going against Iran for the last few months. We have seen in the last few months how it has played out positively for Iran. And it is because of the Strait of Hormuz that Trump was forced to come to the negotiating table, though he again violated the negotiation, which is his modus operandi. But he was forced to stop his aggression against Iran or restrict his aggression against Iran because it was having an effect on world economy and he could not control the world economy, the rising prices, even in the American mainland. So the Strait of Hormuz is the only option helping Iran prevent further aggression.Press TV: Right. Okay, Kevin, yesterday we had Netanyahu’s visit to the US. What was he whispering in Trump’s ears? He said he has had the best meeting ever with Trump. What is it that could be probably asking President Trump to do?Kevin Barrett: That’s a great question. It’s actually unclear, because we had simultaneously that claim from Netanyahu that it was the best ever meeting with Trump. And then at the same time, there were reports that it was unusually short, that Netanyahu snuck in through the back door and was snubbed. So maybe Netanyahu was exaggerating or trying to cover up the fact that it wasn’t such a great meeting. That’s a possibility. Or on the other hand, maybe there’s some truth beneath that claim. Maybe Netanyahu once again has pulled out his Epstein blackmail evidence of what Trump may have done to young girls like Katie, who sued him for brutally raping her in the presence of Jeffrey Epstein when she was 13 years old. And Netanyahu may have flashed that kind of material at Trump to try to force him to follow Israel’s orders to escalate the war on Iran. Who knows what really happened in that meeting when two of the world’s worst war criminals occupied the same space briefly. We certainly know that Congress isn’t applauding Netanyahu the way they used to anymore, and that the American people have turned against Israel. There’s been a 70% collapse in support for the Zionist entity among the American public,according to Pew Research, over the last eight years. So, however that meeting went, the American—Press TV: Kevin, sorry for jumping in. Please tell me who’s actually controlling the whole thing? Who is under whose thumb? Is it Mr. Trump who is simply materializing the whims and wishes of Netanyahu, or does Trump have his own mind?Kevin Barrett: Well, certainly Trump doesn’t have much of his own mind. He doesn’t have much of a mind at all. He’s a very impulsive individual with narcissistic personality disorder and low impulse control. So I think he’s been manipulated. I think he spent his entire life as a frontman for what Americans sometimes call the kosher Nostra, that is, a certain ethnic organized crime syndicate that dominates the United States, killed the Kennedys, did 9/11 among other crimes, probably killed Charlie Kirk as well. I think Trump has been a money launderer and a front man for that crime syndicate for his whole adult life. I don’t think he’s very independent, unfortunately. On the other hand, the fact that he is such a loose cannon and nobody can ever predict what he’s going to say or do might mean that he’s capable of intentionally biting that Kosher Nostra hand that feeds him, especially if he’s forced to do so by his own military and strategic establishment, which sees that he’s gotten the United States into a terrible mess with this very ill-advised attack on Iran, which was very much at the instigation of the Israelis and not of any strategic thinkers from the American side.Press TV: Okay. Khomeira, speaking of the U.S. and the polls conducted there, we also see President Trump’s popularity going down. People are not satisfied with his performance, especially when it comes waging war against Iran. Many don’t want that war. They don’t want taxpayers’ money to be going down the drain with a useless war.Khomeira Ahad: Yeah, you are absolutely right. This is the only war in recent history which doesn’t have any support amongst the American people. And the wars which were fought by America in the recent past in Afghanistan, Iraq, the media also played a role to promote that false propaganda. We know about Iraq that false propaganda about weapons of mass destruction was fed to the American public, and about the World Trade Center. There are still lots of theories about that. Who did it? Was it an inside job? Not going much into it. But a sort of ground was built amongst the American public where support was garnered for these wars. According to statistics, the Iraq war had 70% support approximately when the war started. As far as the Afghanistan war is concerned, 90% support. But since the onset of war against Iran, it has not had any support from the American public. No ground was set before this war was started. So it’s the most unpopular war amongst the Americans, and not only amongst Americans, but the whole world. Trump did not provide any logical reason to wage a war against Iran. Yeah, we know there has been false propaganda in the Western media against Iran for the last 48 years. We are seeing this again and again in different countries. Trump’s support is decreasing, and one of the most important reasons for this decrease in support is that he violated his idea of making America great again, where he said he would say that he doesn’t want to start any foreign wars. And now he is against his own statements, and that has decreased in his popularity. And we are seeing even among the Republican base also, he is losing support. The Iran war is becoming a political graveyard for Trump.Press TV: Kevin, Trump began singing this rhetoric saying, we’re going to hit them hard. And he’s been hitting it hard. And you know where he’s been hitting mostly, civil infrastructure: people, hospitals, schools, wherever they can hit. But this has been going on, this vicious circle, going on and on. Is Trump going to learn one day that this simply doesn’twork?Kevin Barrett: Some of his advisors are afraid to tell him that, but others, maybe J.D. Vance,maybe some of the military people, are trying to whisper in his ear and say, look, there’s never been a case in history where bombing civilians ever convinced any country. It’s the opposite. It just makes them angry and consolidates support for their war effort. And if there’s any country where that’s going to be true, it’s Iran, because Iran has a national identity that has a large element of Shia Islam, where the martyrdom of a long line of imams, including Hussein, has forged an attitude of standing up against injustice. Martyrdoms don’t help the murderers when you’re fighting that kind of country, more so than any other country. The idea that hitting these civilian targets in Iran is somehow going to help his cause is so obviously false that I have a hard time believing that any of his advisors are not trying to disabuse him of it. And they also are fully aware that Iran has that escalation dominance. That is, anything that is done to Iranian infrastructure, Iran can do the same thing to the countries on the other side of the Gulf, and to some extent the Zionist entity as well. In fact, actually worse. Again, Iran has that escalation dominance, even if it gets into these war crimes of targeting civilian infrastructure, which is what this is. Trump’s even threatening to do that. He’s openly stated that he does it. That’s a war crime in itself. And then when he actually does that, he hits bridges, hospitals, schools. This is an extreme war crime. And so he’s setting himself up for all kinds of trouble, not just political trouble, as the other guest mentioned, complete collapse of the nonexistent support that this war had at the beginning. But then when the economy tanks, even worse than it has already, he is likely to end up with a Congress that hates him and is ready to dig into his misdeeds, and he could easily end up in prison, as could Netanyahu.Press TV: Now, Khomeira, how can both sides get out of this no-war, no-peace state? Because Iran has never initiated any war. Iran is not in favor of any war. But when a war is waged against Iran, Iran has to defend itself, and that’s what it is doing. But you see, we have on the other side a President Trump who is not being honorable. And he’s actually threatening, and then he says, “now let’s turn to the negotiating table. We’ve been in deep negotiations with them. Hopefully we’ll get some good news.” And then immediately afterwards, he says, “we’re going to give them a beating.”Khomeira Ahad: Yeah, you’re absolutely right. Coming out of this sort of quagmire is difficult, because Iran has been retaliating. Iran has not started this war. All the type of whatever aggression Iran faced, Iran just retaliated to those strikes. Talking about negotiation and diplomacy is quite difficult because we are seeing that Trump does not stand by his word. Trump signed—it’s really very bizarre to even accept that the President of the United States signs a document and then he doesn’t adhere to it even for two weeks, and he again starts the aggression. Diplomacy for him means nothing. And he’s the same person who tore up the JCPOA when he first became the President of the United States of America.So for Iran, to trust them again and again has been difficult. And we have seen Iranian diplomats again saying that they are going into negotiations with complete mistrust. They know the Americans have been dishonest again and again. And now, very apparently and in a really bizarre way, we have seen what Trump has done in the last few weeks. There are people inAmerica like American diplomat, Robert Malley, everybody knows his name. He was one of the chief negotiators during the JCPOA. And during the Biden administration, he was given the Iran portfolio. In a recent interview, he said that if Iran now decides to make a nuclear weapon, it would be very logical. And for them to trust diplomacy, to trust Trump, is almost impossible. So even American diplomats, the people who have been in the American bureaucracy, have been saying that the way this American president has been behaving, it’s almost impossible for the Iranian side to now trust him or trust any of the things which he guarantees on paper.Press TV: Okay. Kevin, how do you see things actually unfolding? Do you anticipate further escalation Do you think the negotiation will work? Is Trump the kind of person you can trust? Will he be in compliance with any deal? What happened to the Islamabad MOU?Kevin Barrett: Well, obviously, you can’t trust Trump. You can’t really trust the United States policy, even outside of Trump. The Obama administration did not fully abide by its obligations under the JCPOA, and the Biden administration either. But of course, Trump has taken this to new levels of blatant mendacity. So no, obviously Iran cannot trust Trump at all. From now on, the MOU has to be implemented before Iran even talks to the Americans anymore. In other words, if the United States goes ahead and tells Israel to get out of Lebanon, abides by its obligations, releases Iran’s cash, and backs off in Hormuz and stops attacking Iran, then maybe there will be something to talk about. But if that doesn’t happen, what’s the point of talking when the other party has violated the last solemnly signed agreement that you made with them? That would be completely stupid to keep trusting somebody who’s repeatedly pulling the rug out from under you. So I think it all has to be up front next time. In other words, Iran won’t accept any promises. It will only accept actions and realities.Press TV: Okay, we’ve got one minute left if you want to make a conclusion.Khomeira Ahad: Even now, we saw recently what Trump said. His rhetoric has really been very inflammatory. And we saw how IRGC responded. They said any ship which will take the compensation of Iranian frozen assets will not get a safe passage of the Strait of Hormuz. So what we are seeing through the messages, even those Trump is communicating to the Iranian side, is that he is not honest. He doesn’t want to have any diplomacy with Iran. He doesn’t want to have any real and fair deal with Iran, even if he says diplomacy is going on. The way he has been behaving, the words he has been saying, the statements he has been issuing are really totally contrary to the diplomacy or contrary to, you know, a country which wants to have issues resolved. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkLaurent Guyénot, author of From Yahweh to Zion, discusses his new book The Papal Curse…and its implications for understanding where the world is going and why.TranscriptKevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audio Visual. I’m Kevin Barrett doing the audio since 2006 and the visual since a little bit after that, unless you want to count my Hannity interview and stuff like that. Anyway, I’ve been looking for truth, 9/11 and otherwise, for going on 25 years. And one of the more important, noteworthy colleagues in that voyage has been Laurent Guyénot. He’s the author of From Yahweh to Zion, the only book that I was willing to spend a year and a half or so of my life translating, because it’s really important. And a lot of his other work is important too. So without further ado, welcome, Laurent. How are you?Laurent Guyénot: Thank you, Kevin, for having me. I’m fine, thank you. So, I’ve been joining you in the fight for truth only 10 years, well, about 12 years. So, you know, you’re my teacher in that field, in everything, actually.Kevin Barrett: Well, thank you. So, we’ve been together about halfway through the period since 9/11 and pretty much on the same page. With the “Israel mainly did it thesis,” which more and more people are starting to wake up to. You’re hearing whispers of that from people with tens of millions of audience members. If you add up Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and well, there have been a couple of others, I think, too. What’s his name? That famous podcaster guy? Laurent Guyénot: Nick Fuentes, maybe?Kevin Barrett: Yeah, him too.Laurent Guyénot: Actually, him more than Carlson and Candace Owens, about 9/11 at least. It seems to me, from what I’ve looked at, Carson is not really saying Israel did it. He’s just saying they might have had foreknowledge or he’s still at this stage. So that’s why we’re looking forward to the 25th anniversary to see if the Israel did it theory is moving forward. I hope so.Kevin Barrett: Well, yeah, Carlson is dropping a few nods and winks, I think. He’s just being very, very careful so as not to invite, you know, getting Charlie Kirked or something like that. But yeah, I think you were ahead of your time with that thesis. And the world is catching up to you. And so you have a couple of other very provocative historical theses as well. And that’s what we’re going to actually talk about today. Your book, The Papal Curse, has just come out. And it argues that the papacy, the institution of the Catholic Church, has really been more of a curse than a blessing for Christianity, for Europe, and for the world. Now, my many Catholic friends—and I probably have as many Catholic friends as any kind of group from another philosophy or religion outside of my own Sufi Muslim orientation—I have lots of Catholic friends, and most of them aren’t going to like this. But I think it’s a discussion worth having, and any book that you write is worth talking about. So let’s go for it. Let’s talk about The Papal Curse. So what got you started with this?Laurent Guyénot: Well, I think my research really, it’s a prolongation, a continuation of my research on Yahwism, you know, on Israel, what is the essence of Israel. And in my In my book already, From Yahweh to Zion, that it translated, I kind of opened up the discussion about the Jewish question being actually the other side of the Christian question. How Jewish power kind of conquered the West. It cannot be explained without understanding Christianity’s relationship to Judaism. That was my starting point. But then having some background in the Middle Ages—Kevin Barrett: You don’t look that old. (Just kidding.)Laurent Guyénot: Yeah. Well, you know, my mind, my soul may be quite old. I don’t know.Kevin Barrett: We’re about the same age, so you’re getting pretty old.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah. Yeah, so anyway, I, well, actually, I had some kind of, how do you call it, epiphany. One day, it just hit me, the very simple truth that if you try to understand Europe, and that’s another angle, and those two angles kind of met in my mind, because…If you love Europe, you cannot but be struck by the fact that Europe is a disaster as a civilization today because Europe is fragmented. And so therefore, if you try to understand what’s going on in the world today with the multipolar order, with civilizational states or the civilizational area trying to find a new order, you cannot help but be depressed as a European by noticing that Europe simply does not exist politically. There is a kind of European Union government. Everybody in Europe hates them. They have no legitimacy. They have no sovereignty. Every country in Europe still has... Anyway, the fragmentation of Europe, if you start to think about it—and it’s not natural to think about it because we just assume it’s the normal state of Europe. We just have been told, well, Europe is a Europe of nations. But if you really start to understand how Europe became a Europe of nations, if you’re a Christian, if you’re a Catholic, you will quickly understand that, well, that’s thanks to the Pope. And most Catholics who think the papacy did a good job are happy with Europe being a Europe of nations. They’re just not happy that Europe is not enough for a Europe of nations. And they’re not happy that nations, European nations, have lost their sovereignty. And so they’re kind of in a dilemma because they know, realistically, European nations are not players in the new multiple world. Only Europe has the potential to have a place and to resist colonization from the United States, or in the past from the Soviet Union. So that’s the tragedy of Europe. And as I studied the Middle Ages, I realized it has been a tragedy throughout the history of Europe, ever since the fall of the Roman Empire. And it has been a tragedy not only for Europe itself, because Europe is in a state of civil war. If you think of Europe as a civilization, it’s a civilization which is destroying itself all the time. It’s a constant state of war, with each nation trying to outdo the others in terms of military technology. And so from many different standpoints, even from the standpoint of the war ideology that developed in Europe and the war technology, the military technology, this was all kind of motivated by the competition between nations, trying to either dominate Europe or at least not be destroyed by their neighbors. I mean, until World War II, that’s what it was. And then there is this famous book by a German historian (Ernst Nolte) called The European Civil War. He says Europe is in a state of civil war. The First World War and the Second World War were basically European civil wars. Europeans killed each other in atrocious ways. They’ve been killing each other forever.Kevin Barrett: Some historians say that’s the single biggest reason why Europe conquered the world in modern era of colonialism and imperialism. The two most plausible reasons I’ve heard are that (fragmentation into warring states forcing rapid development of military technology) and the printing press. The printing press made people become more educated and literate, and that enabled them to jump ahead in technology. And then, of course, having them fighting each other all the time led to advances in military technology, which they used to conquer the world.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, well, the printing press happened quite late. You know, Europe was in a state of civil war already for many centuries before, so I don’t think that’s a major factor. But yes, you know, so there are two sides to look at it, two ways tolook at it.Kevin Barrett: Wait! You’re saying Europe was already conquering the world before the printing press?Laurent Guyénot: No, I’m saying Europe was already in a civil war. .Kevin Barrett: What I was saying is those are the two reasons given for Europe’s success in conquering and colonizing the world.Laurent Guyénot: Okay.Kevin Barrett: And so they’re kind of separate, right? In other words, I wasn’t saying that the printing press happened because of civil war. They (civil war and the printing press) were just two things that happened in Europe that set Europe apart.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, well, you know, from the printing press, you can say literacy and the industrial, the scientific revolution and so on. Yeah, of course. But if you look at what happened to China, for example, it didn’t have much to do with the printing press. It had to do with military superiority. Europeans came with their metal ships. They conquered the world basically with their military technology. And this military technology developed in a state of constant competition. There are many testimonies about that from the Middle Ages. Many people who noticed, you know, that Europe has always tried to find some kind of balance of power between the nations. But the reality is that you always want to be a little bit on top in the balance in terms of military technology. And then you make alliance with other nations, and then other nations have to make their own alliances. And then when two nations start to quarrel, it becomes a world war. That’s always been the story of the wars in Europe. There are quite a few books. There are two kinds of books, actually. There are books written that take that as a positive aspect and say, well, that’s how Europeans became smarter, more powerful and conquered the world—because they are fragmented and therefore competition between nations stimulated creativity and so on. There is this kind of theory. Which is true, but if you look at the influence of Europe on the world and you start to realize, for example, that colonization…You start to realize that the way the Europeans colonized the world was also done in a state of competition. And so it became “if I don’t steal this land, somebody else will steal it.” It became this kind of mentality. Kevin Barrett: That’s a Jewish-Zionist saying. Laurent Guyénot: Exactly. But that’s exactly how colonization happened. So colonization was every European nation trying to take as much as they could. With no attitude of trying to civilize. The whole predatory attitude of the West was also a result of the fragmentation of the West. There was never in Europe a sense that, okay, we’re a great civilization, therefore we’re going to bring our civilization to the rest of the world. It’s never been the major incentive. The incentive has always been, let’s take it.Kevin Barrett: But that’s a big ideology, right? Everything from Rudyard Kipling poems about the white man’s burden through la mission civilisatrice in France, which you’re, of course, familiar with, and so on.Laurent Guyénot: Of course, there are always those two sides. At some time, Great Britain felt that they were the European empire. So they had this kind of confidence in their own civilization. But then they started to worry as soon as Germany became powerful and beat them after the Industrial Revolution. Germany got a little bit ahead of them. So then they turned against Germany.Kevin Barrett: Right. So let’s get your thesis clear. That is, you’re arguing that without the Pope getting this power through the donation of Constantine and the invention of this forged document a thousand years ago that led to the Catholic Church that we know today, which considers itself to be above the other Christian bishops and so on, finalized the split from the Eastern Church. Without that having happened, you’re suggesting that Europe would, rather than having been split up into these different countries, it would have all been united as one empire. But what’s the evidence that that would have happened? It’s not obvious. A lot of people would say, wait a minute, it’s the opposite. They would say, because there was this unifying Catholic position, that there was the possibility for this feuding bunch of barbarians to pull together as one Holy Roman Empire or something like that. It actually could have happened. Whereas if there hadn’t been a pope, it would have been even less likely to unite. So why is that not thecase?Laurent Guyénot: Well, the evidence is actually overwhelming and it’s actually not even debated. Catholics recognize that in the whole history of Europe, basically the most important factor, or the most important dynamic, is the struggle between the pope and the emperor. The political thinkers of Europe and the people, and most people in Europe, always until, let’s say, the 12th century, still felt they were living in the Roman Empire, in the Roman world. And there was still an empire. There was some period where it’s debatable whether there was an empire or not, but at least from Charlemagne, there was a Roman Empire, if we believe Charlemagne existed. Another question… The Orthodox were the Roman empire, because Roman at that time didn’t mean from Rome, Italy. It meant European, basically. So there was always a Roman empire in Europe. And this Roman Empire in the vision of most people, including of course the Emperor himself, was the continuation of the Roman Empire and the mission was to unite Europe and hopefully to unite Europe and the Byzantine Empire too. So there were also attempts to reconstitute the unity of the Roman world.Kevin Barrett: That would have been Christendom, a united Christendom. Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, Christendom. So the split happened. It started in the 8th century, but the real schism started in the 12th century. And if you compare actually what happened in the West and in the East, in the East, you had a Christian church that never competed with the empire. There were sometimes some quarrels, and the church had some kind of political role, but the church never tried to dominate the empire. That’s the main accusation the Orthodox make against the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church wanted to be, the Pope wanted to be, the true Emperor. And that’s even explicit in the Pope’s writings and sermons and so on. So the Catholic Church wanted to be above the emperor, and of course above all other kings, in a very political way, not only in a spiritual way. What happened, and that’s not very well known, but the evidence is absolutely indisputable, is that the popes wanted to treat other sovereigns as their vassals, paying tribute. The Pope wanted to be able to mobilize armies from every kingdom in Europe to send them to Jerusalem, for example. So there was really a political dimension to the Papacy, a very strong, explicit political will to prevent the Roman Emperor—who was German most of the time, but he was still somehow in the imagination of Europeans, he was still the Roman Emperor—to prevent him from unifying Europe. Kevin Barrett: Wait, wait, quickly clarify that the Holy Roman Empire of the Germans was operating at the same time as Constantinople or Byzantium, correct?Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, yeah.Kevin Barrett: So Christendom was already split. So why is it any better to have a Holy Roman German Emperor splitting Christendom from Byzantium than to have a Pope doing it?Laurent Guyénot: Well, the Roman emperors did not create the split from Byzantium. The Popes did. I mean, even the Orthodox emperors made a lot of effort. Otto I married his son, Otto II, to a Byzantine princess. And then Otto II married his son Otto III to a Byzantine princess. Unfortunately, Otto III died just before his bride arrived in Europe. But there was, from the emperor’s side, a strong desire, some kind of attempt to at least reconstitute, if not having one emperor for the whole world, it was assumed that it’s better to have two emperors.Kevin Barrett: But it’s still a united Christendom under two emperors.Laurent Guyénot: Well, that’s a tradition from the time of Diocletian, from before Constantine. There were times where, like under Constantine, Constantine reunited the empire. But before that and after that, there were many situations where there were two emperors. There was the old Rome, and the new Rome. And the Western Emperor actually was not in Rome already from the third century. So the fact that the Roman Empire in the West was based in Germany was not something very strange, because already Rome had not been the capital of the Western Empire for many, many centuries. It became Milan, and then it became Ravenna. And at some point, at the time of Constantine, it was even more clear. So the Western Roman Empire didn’t have a very clear capital. Rome was, of course, a historical capital, but it was not the seat of the Empire already for a long time before. So the perspective that I try to give, which is, I think, not very well known, but as I said, overwhelmingly proven, is that there was an attempt to keep Europe united as an empire. And by an empire, we have to also be clear what we mean.The empire in the imagination of Europeans was not a very heavy structure. The empire was basically the Pax Romana. That’s basically what it was, because the world was still a world of cities. Even during the Roman Empire and after, it was still a world of city states. In Northern Europe, which was not very urbanized, it became kingdoms. But basically, the empire in the European imagination was not a very oppressive structure. It was a structure to keep peace because it was to take taxes to pay the legion. The army was the empire’s business, to protect the frontier and so on. It was a very positive vision for many. Dante was actually a great promoter of the empire in the 14th century. Most political thinkers longed for the empire, longed for the peace that only the empire could sustain. But the papacy (created) the opposite. Constantly. There are many episodes. We cannot go through the details, but everybody knows about the Canoza episode, the end of the investiture controversy where the Pope forced the Emperor to come and beg him forgiveness because he was excommunicated. But there are many episodes like this where the Popes forced the Emperor to submit to him. And the Pope used France in particular, and sometimes England, to fight against the Emperor. So the perspective I bring is to show that actually, even if you think of Europe as a kind of organism, with a kind of soul or with a kind of destiny, you can feel that Europe always wanted to be the Empire. Most of the time it was Germany, until the Hohenstaufen Empire, which almost succeeded in beating the Pope, was destroyed. And then later France wanted to be the Empire. And then finally it became the British Empire that kind of won the game at some point, until finally it became the United States Empire that destroyed the British Empire. But the notion of Empire was always the destiny of Europe. And if I look at the state of Europe today, I can see clearly that the fragmentation of Europe, which is a result of the Pope, is a disaster, a tragedy. And the way the West behaved in the rest of the world, the way the New World was colonized…And actually, Catholic writers agree with that, but they think it’s a good thing. But they agree that the Pope is the major factor for the fragmentation of Europe. But they think the fragmentation of Europe is a great thing because nations are the best thing in the world.Nations Good, Empires BadKevin Barrett: “Nations are good, empires are bad.” That ideology seems to be one of those unquestioned things that people on the left and the right agree on. On the left they criticize imperialism, right? “You’re trying to create an empire.” On the right, they’re in favor of nationalism. “We want to have our ethnic group and our language and be our core political identity and be against all the other people with their ethnic groups and their languages.” So both on the left and the right, you have this agreement that imperialism and empires are bad and that nation states are good. Laurent, I think you’re onto something here with this notion that the rise of the modern nation state in 19th century Europe was really not such a good thing. I’ve read Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities, in which he describes how Western Europeans began to imagine themselves as French and Germans and so on. And then it spread to Eastern Europe, leading to these revolts against the Ottoman Empire, which was seen as bad. And in fact, what was really going on was that these groups identified with the language of what became their capital: French people became the people who spoke the dialect of Paris, which the schoolteachers took to all the corners of what’s now France. This made them all think that they spoke the same language, and were therefore the same ethnicity and the same nation. The same thing happened all in these other places. And people started butchering each other, because they identified so strongly with their own ethnicity and language, and hated the people of the other ethnicity and language. This led to the bloodshed in the Balkans. And to this day, there are a lot of idiots who think that, “oh, this was a great liberation from the horrible oppressive Ottoman Empire,” when in fact the Ottoman Empire was vastly more desirable, as a way of ruling that part of the world, than anything that’s happened since. So anyway, I think that’s something that people should think about: that maybe empires are better, having a larger political body that keeps the peace and unites people. And that’s the opposite of the Zionist idea. The Zionists say, “why shouldn’t we Jews have our own state? Everybody else gets their own state.” No, they don’t! Actually, there are 180 or 190 states, quote unquote, in the world, and virtually none of them are mono-ethnic. Virtually none of them! Almost all states are in reality multi-ethnic, and indeed in most cases to some extent multi-linguistic. But we have this illusion that everybody is supposed to have their own state. Every ethnicity, every language (there are over 7000 of them) is supposed to have its own state. That’s the imagined communities of the earth according to this modern ideology. And I think it’s a stupid ideology.Laurent Guyénot: Well, yeah, and it’s actually a recent ideology. People think nations have been around all the world, all throughout history, that human beings are destined to live in nation states. But this, as you pointed out, this started inthe 19th century. It started, of course, before the nation there were national states Historians make a distinction between national states, which began, let’s say, in the 13th or 14th century, when France was the first nation to have a strong centralized state, and then nation states in the 19th century, but that’s a continuation. And actually, if you mention the Ottoman Empire, it’s interesting because François 1 allied himself with the Ottomans against the Germans. So, in fact, the fragmentation of Europe and the competition between Europeans is the major factor why the Ottoman Empire could come almost to Vienna, and conquered the Balkans. It was because Europe could not unite and were atwar constantly. And at some point, the French decided, well, let’s ally ourselves with the Muslim Ottomans and then we’ll beat the Germans. And then after that, we’ll see what happens. So even the fact that the Ottoman Empire kind of took half of Europe at some point was the result of the competition between Germany, France and England. Kevin Barrett: Right, that’s a common pattern in history. That’s also one of the reasons why Islam didn’t become the dominant force overall in Europe, which it easily could have with the original conquest of Al-Andalus or Islamic Spain. In the eighth century, it seemed unstoppable, but the petty disputes between the different Muslim commanders in al-Andalus, and particularly based on their split, the partially imaginary partially real split between the Arabs and the Berbers, or some of the Arabs and some of the Berbers, led to the fragmentation that prevented Europe from being united under Islam, which I would argue would have been by far the best thing. And indeed, modern Western historians (including William Polk in Crusade and Jihad) pointed out that Europe lost perhaps at least three centuries of progress by its failure to be conquered by Islam.Laurent Guyénot: Well, yeah, I probably would not agree with that, but definitely... Kevin Barrett: Do you have any arguments against it? Laurent Guyénot: Well...I think Christianity was the greatest disaster for Europe than Islam, I think you would not disagree with that. Islam is akind of a result or a reaction to Christianity or it’s kind of coming from the Judeo-Christian paradigm and it brought some good, in my view, it brought some good correction to Christianity. But I’m not in favor of any kind of religion imposing a revelation by God. So I’m a kind of a Roman from that point of view. Romans had everything just like the Chinese today. They never needed a revelation from God to build their civilization. I don’t think civilization needs a revelation from God. So I think the Roman philosophy and the Roman religious environment was perfectly capable to develop on its own.Kevin Barrett: So it’s basically an issue of the discussion of what is revelation, is it necessary or not, which is a long topic. We talked about that a little bit in our discussion about philosophy. So people can refer to that.Laurent Guyénot: But you know, the bottom line in Europe is why Christianity? because Constantine became Christian. You know, it all started with Constantine. Before Constantine, Christianity existed but was not very strong. Recent historians say only 2% of people living in the Roman Empire were Christians when Constantine decided to make Christianity almost a state religion. So why Europe became Christian is a different question, but of course it’s connected. But one thing I wanted to say in response to what you said, which is very true, that most people on the right idealize the nation. And in France, it’s very clear that they only care about France. And they’re still in a mindset that their neighbors are the enemies, the Germans are the enemies, the British are terrible, they’re satanic. They’re still in this kind of mind frame, which is absolutely catastrophic. Kevin Barrett: I have a hard time getting out of it myself. As an Irish American, I hate the British.Laurent Guyénot: Well, yeah, if you’re Irish, you have a different point of view, of course. But Ireland was never part of the Roman Empire, so they’re a bit special. But actually, in Europe, there’s been a strong movement called La Nouvelle Droite which has been trying to work on the basis of Europe rather than the nations. And so my book, The Papal Curse, is now forwarded by Alain de Benoît. Alain de Benoît is a very important intellectual in France and in Europe. He’s considered the kind of the founder of the European new right, which basically I didn’t know much about when I wrote my book. And after I finished my book, I started to realize, well, I completely agree with Alain de Benoit. And then I contacted him and he wrote a foreword for my book. So this movement is very interesting and has been very influential in Europe. This is a movement that the publisher of my book, Arktos, is the publisher behind that kind of movement in Germany, in England, in France. But this movement is not very well known. It’s not mainstream. It has been excluded from the left-right debate. They accepted that label “the new right.” But in fact, they’re not especially right-wing. Some of them are very socialist. So there’s just kind of a third path, different from either the right or the left. And unfortunately, this movement is very interesting because they have this kind of perspective that the only destiny, the only possibility for Europe is to find its own identity politically, not only as a Christian civilization. Because you said at one time, what’s wrong with the Pope unifying Europe? Well, nothing wrong, if the Pope could have unified Europe, but he didn’t. Kevin Barrett: So you’re criticizing him for failing? Laurent Guyénot: Well, the Pope wanted to be the emperor. Why should he do that? The problem is that the Pope’s legitimacy did not exist. The Pope’s ambition to become the emperor, first of all, was based on the donation of Constantine, which is a forgery, a well-known forgery, the greatest, most influential forgery…Kevin Barrett: Catholic intellectuals admit it was a forgery?Laurent Guyénot: Today you can look at Wikipedia, everybody admitted it. Even the church admitted it publicly at some point. It was admitted only in the 16th century, but in reality many people knew it was a forgery even long before that.Kevin Barrett: It’s kind of strange, isn’t it, that Catholics believe their particular institution has this special God-given status that gives the Pope infallibility and so on and so forth. To my mind, that’s the mistake that Catholics make. May Allah forgive me if I’m offending my Catholic friends or getting anything wrong here. But it has always struck me that there is a bit of a contradiction between that belief and historical realities, starting with the donation of Constantine, that created the whole thing, being a forgery.Laurent Guyénot: I would agree with the Orthodox like Dostoevsky, who many Russian Orthodox thought, they maybe would not say it like this today, but they thought the papacy was really satanic. BecauseDostoevsky makes this point that when the Pope wanted to be the Emperor, he was doing exactly what the devil was tempting Jesus to do: “Worship me and I will give you the kingdoms of this world.” Kevin Barrett: So Dostoevsky’s famous Grand Inquisitor passage in the Brothers Karamazov is actually about the Pope.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that passage I quoted is from his journal. So from my viewpoint, what the papacy tried to do, taking advantage of the donation of Constantine and taking advantage also of the weakening of the imperial structure…from the 9th century to the 12th century, the Church was the most elaborate, the most international, the most educated organization in Europe. No kingdom, and not even the empire, could compete with it in terms of power of propaganda, power of networking, of all the resources. It was a tremendous power. So it took advantage of that situation to claim, well, I’m the empire, I’m the emperor. So I should behave like it and I should put all the kingdoms (below me). Something that people don’t really know in European history is that the Pope actually became the suzerain All the kings had to pay homage to the Pope, exactly like a vassal pays homage to his king. So the Pope was the effective emperor, in fact, in competition with the German Empire. And the story lasted, well, let’s say, from the Ottos…it was going fine because actually the Ottonian emperors put their own men as popes, so they had a good relationship with the popes. But then after that, under the Salian emperors, Henry IV, particularly, the one that went to Canossa, and then the story gets incredibly, absolutely very moving and impressive, the story of the struggle between the popes and the Hohenstaufen, ending with Frederick II, Hohenstaufen, who was seen by many people as the man who had succeeded to reunite Europe. Basically, all the kings recognized him as the emperor. He was excommunicated three times. The popes finally managed, through the brother ofthe French king, to slaughter all his children, his grandchildren, and to absolutely eradicate his dynasty. It was a very bloody struggle which basically destroyed forever the hope of a European empire. And from that time on, in the 14th century and 15th century, Europe tried to develop a kind of a system of balance of power. Later there was the Westphalian treaty. And all these treaties tried to make sure that no nation could claim the empire. Even though the Germans continued to call themselves an empire, from the point of view of this new system, they were just one nation among the others, and the system was made so that no unity could ever be achieved in Europe, because not one national power could ever dominate the rest. That was the kind of obsession of the European nations…In theory. But in practice, every nation wanted still to be the strongest. So it ended up with Napoleon calling himself the emperor, which was a disaster also because...well, for different reasons.Kevin Barrett: When we talk about this kind of European identity and even the existence of something called Europe, probably the least obvious division between continents or continental identity would be the split between Europe and Asia. The other continents are generally—it’s easier to geographically delineate them and see why there is not all that much commerce between them. Even to this day, you can’t drive between North and South America. It’s connected by a small land bridge, but that territory is so wwampy and jungly and overgrown and full of crocodiles and bandits that nobody can even go through there. There are water boundaries around all the other continents. And then we have this supercontinent, Eurasia, which is really one continent. And okay, so there are some mountains, the Ural Mountains and so on, but they’re not absolute barriers. And then down at the Spain-Morocco corner, where I am, that’s pretty easy to get across too. It’s like an hour or two on the ferry, and any simple boat can cross at Gibraltar. The Mediterranean has been very easy to cross for millennia. So why do we even talk about Europe in the first place? Why do you think there’s even such a thing as Europe? Like “Europe,” India is just another peninsula off of Eurasia. So there’s an Indian peninsula off Eurasia. There’s the European peninsula off Eurasia. Why is one of them a continent? I don’t get it.Laurent Guyénot: Well, you’re right to point to geography is always the bottom line of the political entities. At the time of the Roman Empire, the Mediterranean was the Middle Sea. Geographically, the sea makes it so easy to travel, all the trade was going through the Mediterranean Sea. So it made sense that they conceived the Mediterranean world as their empire, and they put their borders, and their legions, on the Danube and the Rhine. And that was not a very good, very easy border to manage, but somehow not that bad, because the Danube and the Rhine take their sources at 100 kilometers from each other. So it kind of made sense to keep the barbarians up there. And there are other geographical considerations. And then later, there was, of course, the push of Islam. But it does make sense, once you have China as a civilization. China was in the same position. They had also a problem of borders. That’s why they built the great wall. So humans are not completely dominated by geography. They can still decide, okay, we don’t have a natural border. We don’t have a mountain there, or we don’t have a big river, but we’ll build a wall. So history makes history and geography work together. And finally, China somehow managed to define their own civilization and borders. And like most civilizations, most empires, it’s a multi-ethnic. That’s what an empire is. An empire, contrary to a nation, does not try to impose a single ethnicity. Generally, of course, there is a dominant language and culture, but it’s still multi-ethnic. And then Russia, for some reason, also managed to conquer such a huge territory that they became themselves a multi-ethnic empire. So Europe is left. And then there is Southeast Asia, which has its own culture, very, very specific. So we culturally, we are very different. Europeans do constitute... You know, a kind of cultural unity, so they also have their space geographically. I don’t know why, but that’s a fact, I think.Kevin Barrett: Maybe sort of in the same way that, say, Southeast Asians do…maybe a little less so than Chinese do… In China, the Mandarin writing system has been the writing system for this whole civilization forever, and the languages are much more split in what we call Europe. And what we call Europe, to me, doesn’t really seem to be that much more of a thing than Southeast Asia.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, it’s a good comparison. Southeast Asia is also a disaster in terms of cultural unity, and ultimately they will end up as vassals of China.Kevin Barrett: So that means that the European leaders are going to be agreeing with you, saying we need to unite against Russia in the same way that Southeast Asia needs to unite against China.Laurent Guyénot: Well, that’s what many Europeans think. In the European Union, they are obsessed with, “we are Europe, therefore we are the enemies of Russia.” It’s true. But that’s part of the character of Europe. It’s not inherent in the fact to have a multipolar world. The multipolar world doesn’t have to be aworld of poles at war with each other. It’s just the character of Europe, which is the result of that history that makes them obsessed with going to war with Russia. Russia doesn’t have that pathology. China doesn’t have that pathology. Iran doesn’t have that pathology. It’s a typical European pathology. They think, “if you’re my neighbor, then I’m at war with you.” If you’re on the same continent as me. That’s the European pathology. But it doesn’t have to be so. If Europe had managed to be somehow a political empire, or even if you don’twant to use the word empire, had it had a political unity, not only a cultural unity, but a political unity…There’s always borders truggles all the time, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be a constant state of war.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, that makes good sense. If you’d asked me 20 or 30 years ago, I would have said Europe has tremendous potential. It’s been uniting, it’s creating first the common market, then the EU. This is quite amazing. No place else on earth has been able to do this. They’re creating something, they’ve created the single biggest GDP entity in the world. With how many million people? Four or five hundred million people or something, depending on how you count them. You’ve got potentially the world’s biggest, most powerful country that dwarfs the United States in GDP and population. And it’s the heir to this very impressive civilization. Arguably, you could trace it back to the Greco-Roman civilization. Certainly, you can trace it through the western side of Christendom. It’s great things this civilization has done historically. It has so much potential. So 23 years ago, I would have said that this European unity project is wonderful. It’s great. You guys are so much better than us stupid barbaric Americans. Go for it. And then today I look at it, and it’s hard to say whether the European leadership or the American leadership is more idiotic, barbaric, needlessly bellicose, mass murderous, risking the future of the planet, making idiotic decisions, shooting itself in the foot, and on and on and on. So what happened? I mean, Western civilization…it looks like there isn’t much left if there ever was any.Laurent Guyénot: Well, there’s no question that European Union is a total failure, a total disaster. But when Europe was built in the 1950s, the first element was the free market within Europe, we used to call it le marché commun, the common market. They built Europe progressively after the Second World War. They decided once again, you know, let’s create something so that we don’t fight each other all the time. Kevin Barrett: Seemed like a good idea, didn’t it?Laurent Guyénot: It was a good idea. And among the thinkers who put that together, some had the vision…there were different tendencies, different schools. Some wanted a federal Europe. There were different tendencies, but it was a legitimate, necessary direction that Europe was taking. The problem, I think the main problem, was that they thought, mistakenly, “let’s begin with the economic union. Let’s begin with economy and then we’ll see how it develops and then the political aspect will take care of itself later.” And that was, I think, the major mistake. Because once you put the economy first, you build a Europe of economists, of industrialists, of lobbies, industrial lobbies. And that’s what we have today. We have a European Union which is completely dominated either by the finance, the economic aspect, or by the United States. Because when Europe was decided,, when Europe was starting to build itself, it was not, as many right-wing nationalists say, a project imposed by the United States on Europe. That’s not true at all.Kevin Barrett: No, the United States was afraid that suddenly it would be eclipsed by Europe.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, but they managed to somehow take a good deal of control of the European Union to the point that now, honestly, objectively, Europe is a colony of the United States. There are many politicians In Europe who want to emancipate Europe from the grip of the United States, but at this moment, they’re definitely not in power. In Germany, for example, there used to be Gerhard Schroeder, who was a friend of Putin. He was a good friend of Russia. And this kind of politician in Germany had still that kind of European vision. The problem is that nobody in Europe, except the Germans, wants to accept that the natural leader of Europe is Germany. That’s been the case throughout Europe. And being French, and having thought a lot about it…Kevin Barrett: You hate to admit it. Laurent Guyénot: I hate to admit it, but the Germans are definitely better in many ways, at least at building a state. So that’s been the case. It’s a little bit mysterious, but the Germans have always been the leader of Europe. And the British hated it. The French hated it. That’s why they destroyed Germany again and again in World War I, in World War II. And they will never admit German superiority in any way.Kevin Barrett: Well, the Russians aren’t that pleased with Germans either. The Russians have a problem with the Germans since World War II.Laurent Guyénot: Well, yeah, but I think the recent North Stream explosion is very, very symbolic. Because it shows that Germany had a desire to deal with Russia in a friendly or at least a normal way. But then their pipeline was blown up, and they knew very well it was not Russia. When it happened, everybody said in Europe, “oh, it’s the Russians, they blew up their own pipeline,” which didn’t make any sense at all. And everybody in Germany, of course, knew it was not. And then recently I read they made some discrete investigations and the conclusion is that it’s the Ukrainians who did it.Kevin Barrett: It must be the Ukrainians, right? They were on like a little sailing boat or something and they sailed over there and sent a couple of frogmen down with scuba tanks. Yeah.Laurent Guyénot: And my interpretation is that they used some stupid sentence that Joe Biden said. You remember Joe Biden said in response to a question by a journalist who asked, “how are you going to prevent Russia and Germany from having this pipeline?” And he said, “don’t worry, we know how to do it.” You know, which was a really stupid thing to say. But I think, you know, when the Ukrainians heard that, they’d say, well, now we can do it and we can blame Biden for it.Kevin Barrett: I think Seymour Hersh was probably right. It probably was actually American-led.Laurent Guyénot: Well, it could have been, but I think it was really the Ukrainians and maybe a little bit the British, too.Kevin Barrett: But the fact is that... NATO helped. It wasn’t just Ukrainians. Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, I don’t know. I don’t know. Kevin Barrett: The Americans run NATO.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, it could be. But in any case, the Germans are now in the position to continue to help Ukraine. I’m hoping, I don’t know, but this situation is so crazy. When are the Germans going to wake up and say our enemies are the Ukrainians, not the Russians?Kevin Barrett: Well, the Germans, it seems, have been trained very well to deny their own history. When somebody is doing terrible things to them, they just accept it and then lie about it and blame the enemy of whoever is doing the terrible things to them. This goes back to World War II, when the Germans were brutally occupied and arguably genocided to a certain extent by the Russians and even more so the Americans. And they were then brainwashed into imagining that World War II was all Germany’s fault. And they became self-hating Germans trained to lie about their own history and basically blame themselves, the victims, and exonerate the perpetrators. That’s exactly what they did with World War II. And that’s exactly what they did with the Nord Stream pipeline. They obediently lie. Rather than facing the truth that the American empire is killing you, which it did in World War II with the genocidal occupation of Germany, and which it did with the Nord Stream bombing, the Germans have been so intimidated, brainwashed, and so on, that they just instinctively lie against their own interest. People talk about self-hating Jews. I don’t think so. I think the problem is the self-hating Germans.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, that’s right, yeah. That’s why it’s very, very tragic. But that’s true. That’s one of the central problems of Europe now. Because for many reasons, I still feel Europe can kind of come out of the situation it is in now only with the leadership of Germany. I think only Germany, for example, can rebuild a good relationship with Russia. It will not happen directly between France and Russia. It has to start with Germany and Russia. For many reasons, I think only when Germans overcome what you said: Can they impose a movement of a new awareness in Europe? But it’s very difficult to imagine, because we are still living in Europe... It may be hard for Americans to understand that, because Americans think that Europe is a country, basically. But it’s not. It’s a constant battlefield. The French continue to hate the Germans, the British continue to hate the French. I mean, it’s really crazy, the absolute absence of love for Europe. Basically, Europeans hate Europe. They hate the European Union. Of course, that’s part of the problem. They hate the political system that they have.Kevin Barrett: You can’t completely blame them.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, that’s correct. But under that, there is no love of Europe as a civilization. There is no awareness that Europe should at least reach some kind of unity. The right-wingers think France is the light of the world. Kevin Barrett: But even worse, Laurent, in my opinion, is this attempt by people on the European right, including some people linked to Arktos and so on, to unite Europe and create a European identity by scapegoating Muslims and immigrants and “immigrant Muslims” and basically hating all the darker-skinned people in Europe. And falsely labeling them all as Muslims, or identifying them as Muslims, when in fact there are all kinds of Hindus from India, and black Christians from sub-Saharan Africa, and dark-skinned people from Southeast Asia, and all these places. But what they’ve done is they’ve constructed this notion of the Islamic other, the immigrant, the invader, the Muslim invader, and used that image, that stereotypical image, to hate an external enemy, and thereby create some kind of imaginary European unity. And this project is being fueled by the Islamophobia that the Jews, the Zionist Jews, have injected deep into them. The 9/11 false flag operation was primarily a trauma-based mind control op designed to produce long-term multi-generational Islamophobia. So I think that all these problems, they’re actually not as bad as this proposed solution of hating the dark-skinned Muslim immigrant invader. What do you think?Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, you’re right. The Nouvelle Droite that I mentioned, and Arktos and all these people, it’s a very diverse movement. I think Alain de Benoît is much above the crowd. But they are a little bit… They are very Zionized. They are very afraid to criticize Israel and they are always ready to blame the Muslims. That’s generally true. That’s one of the reasons I’m also happy to be published by Artos, because I bring a little bitof a different perspective. I’m not afraid to say, “until you study the Jewish question, you’re not going to understand anything that happens to Europe. So, do your homework.” And they’re not doing it in general. And I’ve talked openly to many of them in France. I say, why, for example, do you idealize all those French intellectuals of the 19th century? And you never ever mentioned that they were very, very disturbed by Jewish ways of dealing with their own society. And why do you never tell us about the Jewish question from the point of view of all these intellectuals? It’s a really big problem. But again, it’s a diverse movement, and there is a tendency, there’s part of the new right is exactly like Steve Bannon, and actually some of them are very much on the same line, you know, which is a line dictated by Israel. So, yeah, that’s the problem.Kevin Barrett: It’s kind of sad that Bannon, who presents himself as some kind of traditional Catholic, is operating as a virtual agent of Tel Aviv. I mean, where’s is that coming from? Did he sign a contract?Laurent Guyénot: In the Epstein files, I think there is an email where he says to Epstein that he’s a Zionist. Or even if he sayshe’s not, these people are fraud, absolutely.Kevin Barrett: Maybe they Epsteined him.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, that’s true. That’s the problem. Kevin Barrett: I’d like to see a greater development of the more advanced part of the European New Right. People like you, Alexander Wolfheze, who’s actually Muslim.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, that’s right. He’s the one who introduced me into Arktos, actually. He interviewed me once. HJis wife is Iranian, I think. So there is this element also of being friendly to Iran and friendly to the Russians. So it’s kind of the diverse movement. But it’s definitely a line of thinking of Europe and not thinking that the nation state is the absolute ultimate ideal political reality, when in fact it’s just something that the Europeans invented because they could never unite with each other. And then after they invented it, they exported it throughout the world. And then they created the United Nations as if the whole world has to be a bunch of nations. And so China accepts the game and they call themselves a nation. But they are not a nation in the sense of nationalism. Russia is not a nation. It’s a multinational state. So the concept of nation has to be really re-evaluated and kind of diminished in the mind of most people. It has become one of the big problems. And in reverse, the concept of empire has to be studied with a little bit of subtlety. And that’s what Alain de Benoît does in his foreword. He explains what the concept of empire is. It’s not at all what we imagine today, because we understand empire as being the American empire, but that was not the idea in Europe.Kevin Barrett: That’s a really good place to leave it, because I think that’s such an important issue that hardly anybody is aware of, is to unthinkingly accept the world of nation states without asking where it came from. We unthinkingly accept that empires are bad without asking where they came from. And so a rethink of this could be a very important project for humanity’s future.Well, thank you so much, Laurent Guyénot. I love your terrific work. Laurent Guyénot: Thank you, Kevin. Kevin Barrett: You’ve certainly been willing to rethink a whole lot of things quite courageously. So keep up the great work. God bless and look forward to talking again soon.Rumble link Bitchute linkKevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audio Visual. Kevin Barrett doing the audio since 2006 and the visual since a little bitafter that, unless you want to count my Hannity interview and stuff like that. Anyway, I’ve been looking for Truth, 9-11and otherwise, for going on 25 years. And one of the more important, noteworthy colleagues in that voyage has been Laurent Guyénot. He’s the author of From Yahweh to Zion, the only book that I was willing to spend a year and a half orso of my life translating, because it’s really important. And a lot of his other work is important too. So without further ado, welcome, Laurent. How are you?Laurent Guyénot: Thank you, Kevin, for having me. I’m fine, thank you. So, I’ve been joining you in the fight for truth only 10 years,well, about 12 years ago. So, you know, you’re my teacher in that field, in everything, actually.Kevin Barrett: Well, thank you. So, we’ve been together about halfway through the period since 9/11 and pretty much on the same page. With the Israel mainly did it thesis, which more and more people are starting to wake up to. You’re hearing whispers of that from people with tens of millions of audience members. If you add up Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and well, there have been a couple of others, I think, too. What’s his name? That famous podcaster guy? Laurent Guyénot: Nick Fuentes, maybe?Kevin Barrett: Yeah, him too.Laurent Guyénot: Actually, him more than Carlson and Candace Owens, about 9/11 at least. It seems to me, from what I’ve looked at, Carson is not really saying Israel did it. He’s just saying they might have had foreknowledge or he’s still at this stage. So that’s why we’re looking forward to the 25th anniversary to see if the Israel did it theory is moving forward. I hope so.Kevin Barrett: Well, yeah, Carlson is dropping a few nods and winks, I think. He’s just being very, very careful so as not to invite, you know, getting Charlie Kirked or something like that. But yeah, I think you were ahead of your time with that thesis. And the world is catching up to you. And so you have a couple of other very provocative historical theses as well. And that’s what we’re going to actually talk about today. Your book, The Papal Curse, has just come out. And it argues that the papacy, the institution of the Catholic Church, has really been more of a curse than a blessing for Christianity, for Europe, and for the world. Now, my many Catholic friends—and I probably have as many Catholic friends as any kind of group from another philosophy or religion outside of my own Sufi Muslim orientation—I have lots of Catholic friends, and most of them aren’t going to like this. But I think it’s a discussion worth having, and any book that you write is worth talking about. So let’s go for it. Let’s talk about The Papal Curse. So what got you started with this?Laurent Guyénot: Well, I think my research really, it’s a prolongation, a continuation of my research on Yahwism, you know, on Israel, what is the essence of Israel. And in my In my book already, From Yahweh to Zion, that it translated, I kind of opened up the discussion about the Jewish question being actually the other side of the Christian question. How Jewish power kind of conquered the West. It cannot be explained without understanding Christianity’s relationship to Judaism. That was my starting point. But then having some background in the Middle Ages—Kevin Barrett: You don’t look that old. (Just kidding.)Laurent Guyénot: Yeah. Well, you know, my mind, my soul may be quite old. I don’t know.Kevin Barrett: We’re about the same age, so you’re getting pretty old.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah. Yeah, so anyway, I, well, actually, I had some kind of, how do you call it, epiphany. One day, it just hit me, the very simple truth that if you try to understand Europe, and that’s another angle, and those two angles kind of met in my mind, because…If you love Europe, you cannot but be struck by the fact that Europe is a disaster as a civilization today because Europe is fragmented. And so therefore, if you try to understand what’s going on in the world today with the multipolar order, with civilizational states or the civilizational area trying to find a new order, you cannot help but be depressed as a European by noticing that Europe simply does not exist politically. There is a kind of European Union government. Everybody in Europe hates them. They have no legitimacy. They have no sovereignty. Every country in Europe still has... Anyway, the fragmentation of Europe, if you start to think about it—and it’s not natural to think about it because we just assume it’s the normal state of Europe. We just have been told, well, Europe is a Europe of nations. But if you really start to understand how Europe became a Europe of nations, if you’re a Christian, if you’re a Catholic, you will quickly understand that, well, that’s thanks to the Pope. And most Catholics who think the papacy did a good job are happy with Europe being a Europe of nations. They’re just not happy that Europe is not enough for a Europe of nations. And they’re not happy that nations, European nations, have lost their sovereignty. And so they’re kind of in a dilemma because they know, realistically, European nations are not players in the new multiple world. Only Europe has the potential to have a place and to resist colonization from the United States, or in the past from the Soviet Union. So that’s the tragedy of Europe. And as I studied the Middle Ages, I realized it has been a tragedy throughout the history of Europe, ever since the fall of the Roman Empire. And it has been a tragedy not only for Europe itself, because Europe is in a state of civil war. If you think of Europe as a civilization, it’s a civilization which is destroying itself all the time. It’s a constant state of war, with each nation trying to outdo the others in terms of military technology. And so from many different standpoints, even from the standpoint of the war ideology that developed in Europe and the war technology, the military technology, this was all kind of motivated by the competition between nations, trying to either dominate Europe or at least not be destroyed by their neighbors. I mean, until World War II, that’s what it was. And then there is this famous book by a German historian (Ernst Nolte) called The European Civil War. He says Europe is in a state of civil war. The First World War and the Second World War were basically European civil wars. Europeans killed each other in atrocious ways. They’ve been killing each other forever.Kevin Barrett: Some historians say that’s the single biggest reason why Europe conquered the world in modern era of colonialism and imperialism. The two most plausible reasons I’ve heard are that (fragmentation into warring states forcing rapid development of military technology) and the printing press. The printing press made people become more educated and literate, and that enabled them to jump ahead in technology. And then, of course, having them fighting each other all the time led to advances in military technology, which they used to conquer the world.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, well, the printing press happened quite late. You know, Europe was in a state of civil war already for many centuries before, so I don’t think that’s a major factor. But yes, you know, so there are two sides to look at it, two ways tolook at it.Kevin Barrett: Wait! You’re saying Europe was already conquering the world before the printing press?Laurent Guyénot: No, I’m saying Europe was already in a civil war. .Kevin Barrett: What I was saying is those are the two reasons given for Europe’s success in conquering and colonizing the world.Laurent Guyénot: Okay.Kevin Barrett: And so they’re kind of separate, right? In other words, I wasn’t saying that the printing press happened because of civil war. They (civil war and the printing press) were just two things that happened in Europe that set Europe apart.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, well, you know, from the printing press, you can say literacy and the industrial, the scientific revolution and so on. Yeah, of course. But if you look at what happened to China, for example, it didn’t have much to do with the printing press. It had to do with military superiority. Europeans came with their metal ships. They conquered the world basically with their military technology. And this military technology developed in a state of constant competition. There are many testimonies about that from the Middle Ages. Many people who noticed, you know, that Europe has always tried to find some kind of balance of power between the nations. But the reality is that you always want to be a little bit on top in the balance in terms of military technology. And then you make alliance with other nations, and then other nations have to make their own alliances. And then when two nations start to quarrel, it becomes a world war. That’s always been the story of the wars in Europe. There are quite a few books. There are two kinds of books, actually. There are books written that take that as a positive aspect and say, well, that’s how Europeans became smarter, more powerful and conquered the world—because they are fragmented and therefore competition between nations stimulated creativity and so on. There is this kind of theory. Which is true, but if you look at the influence of Europe on the world and you start to realize, for example, that colonization…You start to realize that the way the Europeans colonized the world was also done in a state of competition. And so it became “if I don’t steal this land, somebody else will steal it.” It became this kind of mentality. Kevin Barrett: That’s a Jewish-Zionist saying. Laurent Guyénot: Exactly. But that’s exactly how colonization happened. So colonization was every European nation trying to take as much as they could. With no attitude of trying to civilize. The whole predatory attitude of the West was also a result of the fragmentation of the West. There was never in Europe a sense that, okay, we’re a great civilization, therefore we’re going to bring our civilization to the rest of the world. It’s never been the major incentive. The incentive has always been, let’s take it.Kevin Barrett: But that’s a big ideology, right? Everything from Rudyard Kipling poems about the white man’s burden through la mission civilisatrice in France, which you’re, of course, familiar with, and so on.Laurent Guyénot: Of course, there are always those two sides. At some time, Great Britain felt that they were the European empire. So they had this kind of confidence in their own civilization. But then they started to worry as soon as Germany became powerful and beat them after the Industrial Revolution. Germany got a little bit ahead of them. So then they turned against Germany.Kevin Barrett: Right. So let’s get your thesis clear. That is, you’re arguing that without the Pope getting this power through the donation of Constantine and the invention of this forged document a thousand years ago that led to the Catholic Church that we know today, which considers itself to be above the other Christian bishops and so on, finalized the split from the Eastern Church. Without that having happened, you’re suggesting that Europe would, rather than having been split up into these different countries, it would have all been united as one empire. But what’s the evidence that that would have happened? It’s not obvious. A lot of people would say, wait a minute, it’s the opposite. They would say, because there was this unifying Catholic position, that there was the possibility for this feuding bunch of barbarians to pull together as one Holy Roman Empire or something like that. It actually could have happened. Whereas if there hadn’t been a pope, it would have been even less likely to unite. So why is that not thecase?Laurent Guyénot: Well, the evidence is actually overwhelming and it’s actually not even debated. Catholics recognize that in the whole history of Europe, basically the most important factor, or the most important dynamic, is the struggle between the pope and the emperor. The political thinkers of Europe and the people, and most people in Europe, always until, let’s say, the 12th century, still felt they were living in the Roman Empire, in the Roman world. And there was still an empire. There was some period where it’s debatable whether there was an empire or not, but at least from Charlemagne, there was a Roman Empire, if we believe Charlemagne existed. Another question… The Orthodox were the Roman empire, because Roman at that time didn’t mean from Rome, Italy. It meant European, basically. So there was always a Roman empire in Europe. And this Roman Empire in the vision of most people, including of course the Emperor himself, was the continuation of the Roman Empire and the mission was to unite Europe and hopefully to unite Europe and the Byzantine Empire too. So there were also attempts to reconstitute the unity of the Roman world.Kevin Barrett: That would have been Christendom, a united Christendom. Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, Christendom. So the split happened. It started in the 8th century, but the real schism started in the 12th century. And if you compare actually what happened in the West and in the East, in the East, you had a Christian church that never competed with the empire. There were sometimes some quarrels, and the church had some kind of political role, but the church never tried to dominate the empire. That’s the main accusation the Orthodox make against the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church wanted to be, the Pope wanted to be, the true Emperor. And that’s even explicit in the Pope’s writings and sermons and so on. So the Catholic Church wanted to be above the emperor, and of course above all other kings, in a very political way, not only in a spiritual way. What happened, and that’s not very well known, but the evidence is absolutely indisputable, is that the popes wanted to treat other sovereigns as their vassals, paying tribute. The Pope wanted to be able to mobilize armies from every kingdom in Europe to send them to Jerusalem, for example. So there was really a political dimension to the Papacy, a very strong, explicit political will to prevent the Roman Emperor—who was German most of the time, but he was still somehow in the imagination of Europeans, he was still the Roman Emperor—to prevent him from unifying Europe. Kevin Barrett: Wait, wait, quickly clarify that the Holy Roman Empire of the Germans was operating at the same time as Constantinople or Byzantium, correct?Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, yeah.Kevin Barrett: So Christendom was already split. So why is it any better to have a Holy Roman German Emperor splitting Christendom from Byzantium than to have a Pope doing it?Laurent Guyénot: Well, the Roman emperors did not create the split from Byzantium. The Popes did. I mean, even the Orthodox emperors made a lot of effort. Otto I married his son, Otto II, to a Byzantine princess. And then Otto II married his son Otto III to a Byzantine princess. Unfortunately, Otto III died just before his bride arrived in Europe. But there was, from the emperor’s side, a strong desire, some kind of attempt to at least reconstitute, if not having one emperor for the whole world, it was assumed that it’s better to have two emperors.Kevin Barrett: But it’s still a united Christendom under two emperors.Laurent Guyénot: Well, that’s a tradition from the time of Diocletian, from before Constantine. There were times where, like under Constantine, Constantine reunited the empire. But before that and after that, there were many situations where there were two emperors. There was the old Rome, and the new Rome. And the Western Emperor actually was not in Rome already from the third century. So the fact that the Roman Empire in the West was based in Germany was not something very strange, because already Rome had not been the capital of the Western Empire for many, many centuries. It became Milan, and then it became Ravenna. And at some point, at the time of Constantine, it was even more clear. So the Western Roman Empire didn’t have a very clear capital. Rome was, of course, a historical capital, but it was not the seat of the Empire already for a long time before. So the perspective that I try to give, which is, I think, not very well known, but as I said, overwhelmingly proven, is that there was an attempt to keep Europe united as an empire. And by an empire, we have to also be clear what we mean.The empire in the imagination of Europeans was not a very heavy structure. The empire was basically the Pax Romana. That’s basically what it was, because the world was still a world of cities. Even during the Roman Empire and after, it was still a world of city states. In Northern Europe, which was not very urbanized, it became kingdoms. But basically, the empire in the European imagination was not a very oppressive structure. It was a structure to keep peace because it was to take taxes to pay the legion. The army was the empire’s business, to protect the frontier and so on. It was a very positive vision for many. Dante was actually a great promoter of the empire in the 14th century. Most political thinkers longed for the empire, longed for the peace that only the empire could sustain. But the papacy (created) the opposite. Constantly. There are many episodes. We cannot go through the details, but everybody knows about the Canoza episode, the end of the investiture controversy where the Pope forced the Emperor to come and beg him forgiveness because he was excommunicated. But there are many episodes like this where the Popes forced the Emperor to submit to him. And the Pope used France in particular, and sometimes England, to fight against the Emperor. So the perspective I bring is to show that actually, even if you think of Europe as a kind of organism, with a kind of soul or with a kind of destiny, you can feel that Europe always wanted to be the Empire. Most of the time it was Germany, until the Hohenstaufen Empire, which almost succeeded in beating the Pope, was destroyed. And then later France wanted to be the Empire. And then finally it became the British Empire that kind of won the game at some point, until finally it became the United States Empire that destroyed the British Empire. But the notion of Empire was always the destiny of Europe. And if I look at the state of Europe today, I can see clearly that the fragmentation of Europe, which is a result of the Pope, is a disaster, a tragedy. And the way the West behaved in the rest of the world, the way the New World was colonized…And actually, Catholic writers agree with that, but they think it’s a good thing. But they agree that the Pope is the major factor for the fragmentation of Europe. But they think the fragmentation of Europe is a great thing because nations are the best thing in the world.Nations Good, Empires BadKevin Barrett: “Nations are good, empires are bad.” That ideology seems to be one of those unquestioned things that people on the left and the right agree on. On the left they criticize imperialism, right? “You’re trying to create an empire.” On the right, they’re in favor of nationalism. “We want to have our ethnic group and our language and be our core political identity and be against all the other people with their ethnic groups and their languages.” So both on the left and the right, you have this agreement that imperialism and empires are bad and that nation states are good. Laurent, I think you’re onto something here with this notion that the rise of the modern nation state in 19th century Europe was really not such a good thing. I’ve read Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities, in which he describes how Western Europeans began to imagine themselves as French and Germans and so on. And then it spread to Eastern Europe, leading to these revolts against the Ottoman Empire, which was seen as bad. And in fact, what was really going on was that these groups identified with the language of what became their capital: French people became the people who spoke the dialect of Paris, which the schoolteachers took to all the corners of what’s now France. This made them all think that they spoke the same language, and were therefore the same ethnicity and the same nation. The same thing happened all in these other places. And people started butchering each other, because they identified so strongly with their own ethnicity and language, and hated the people of the other ethnicity and language. This led to the bloodshed in the Balkans. And to this day, there are a lot of idiots who think that, “oh, this was a great liberation from the horrible oppressive Ottoman Empire,” when in fact the Ottoman Empire was vastly more desirable, as a way of ruling that part of the world, than anything that’s happened since. So anyway, I think that’s something that people should think about: that maybe empires are better, having a larger political body that keeps the peace and unites people. And that’s the opposite of the Zionist idea. The Zionists say, “why shouldn’t we Jews have our own state? Everybody else gets their own state.” No, they don’t! Actually, there are 180 or 190 states, quote unquote, in the world, and virtually none of them are mono-ethnic. Virtually none of them! Almost all states are in reality multi-ethnic, and indeed in most cases to some extent multi-linguistic. But we have this illusion that everybody is supposed to have their own state. Every ethnicity, every language (there are over 7000 of them) is supposed to have its own state. That’s the imagined communities of the earth according to this modern ideology. And I think it’s a stupid ideology.Laurent Guyénot: Well, yeah, and it’s actually a recent ideology. People think nations have been around all the world, all throughout history, that human beings are destined to live in nation states. But this, as you pointed out, this started inthe 19th century. It started, of course, before the nation there were national states Historians make a distinction between national states, which began, let’s say, in the 13th or 14th century, when France was the first nation to have a strong centralized state, and then nation states in the 19th century, but that’s a continuation. And actually, if you mention the Ottoman Empire, it’s interesting because François 1 allied himself with the Ottomans against the Germans. So, in fact, the fragmentation of Europe and the competition between Europeans is the major factor why the Ottoman Empire could come almost to Vienna, and conquered the Balkans. It was because Europe could not unite and were atwar constantly. And at some point, the French decided, well, let’s ally ourselves with the Muslim Ottomans and then we’ll beat the Germans. And then after that, we’ll see what happens. So even the fact that the Ottoman Empire kind of took half of Europe at some point was the result of the competition between Germany, France and England. Kevin Barrett: Right, that’s a common pattern in history. That’s also one of the reasons why Islam didn’t become the dominant force overall in Europe, which it easily could have with the original conquest of Al-Andalus or Islamic Spain. In the eighth century, it seemed unstoppable, but the petty disputes between the different Muslim commanders in al-Andalus, and particularly based on their split, the partially imaginary partially real split between the Arabs and the Berbers, or some of the Arabs and some of the Berbers, led to the fragmentation that prevented Europe from being united under Islam, which I would argue would have been by far the best thing. And indeed, modern Western historians (including William Polk in Crusade and Jihad) pointed out that Europe lost perhaps at least three centuries of progress by its failure to be conquered by Islam.Laurent Guyénot: Well, yeah, I probably would not agree with that, but definitely... Kevin Barrett: Do you have any arguments against it? Laurent Guyénot: Well...I think Christianity was the greatest disaster for Europe than Islam, I think you would not disagree with that. Islam is akind of a result or a reaction to Christianity or it’s kind of coming from the Judeo-Christian paradigm and it brought some good, in my view, it brought some good correction to Christianity. But I’m not in favor of any kind of religion imposing a revelation by God. So I’m a kind of a Roman from that point of view. Romans had everything just like the Chinese today. They never needed a revelation from God to build their civilization. I don’t think civilization needs a revelation from God. So I think the Roman philosophy and the Roman religious environment was perfectly capable to develop on its own.Kevin Barrett: So it’s basically an issue of the discussion of what is revelation, is it necessary or not, which is a long topic. We talked about that a little bit in our discussion about philosophy. So people can refer to that.Laurent Guyénot: But you know, the bottom line in Europe is why Christianity? because Constantine became Christian. You know, it all started with Constantine. Before Constantine, Christianity existed but was not very strong. Recent historians say only 2% of people living in the Roman Empire were Christians when Constantine decided to make Christianity almost a state religion. So why Europe became Christian is a different question, but of course it’s connected. But one thing I wanted to say in response to what you said, which is very true, that most people on the right idealize the nation. And in France, it’s very clear that they only care about France. And they’re still in a mindset that their neighbors are the enemies, the Germans are the enemies, the British are terrible, they’re satanic. They’re still in this kind of mind frame, which is absolutely catastrophic. Kevin Barrett: I have a hard time getting out of it myself. As an Irish American, I hate the British.Laurent Guyénot: Well, yeah, if you’re Irish, you have a different point of view, of course. But Ireland was never part of the Roman Empire, so they’re a bit special. But actually, in Europe, there’s been a strong movement called La Nouvelle Droite which has been trying to work on the basis of Europe rather than the nations. And so my book, The Papal Curse, is now forwarded by Alain de Benoît. Alain de Benoît is a very important intellectual in France and in Europe. He’s considered the kind of the founder of the European new right, which basically I didn’t know much about when I wrote my book. And after I finished my book, I started to realize, well, I completely agree with Alain de Benoit. And then I contacted him and he wrote a foreword for my book. So this movement is very interesting and has been very influential in Europe. This is a movement that the publisher of my book, Arktos, is the publisher behind that kind of movement in Germany, in England, in France. But this movement is not very well known. It’s not mainstream. It has been excluded from the left-right debate. They accepted that label “the new right.” But in fact, they’re not especially right-wing. Some of them are very socialist. So there’s just kind of a third path, different from either the right or the left. And unfortunately, this movement is very interesting because they have this kind of perspective that the only destiny, the only possibility for Europe is to find its own identity politically, not only as a Christian civilization. Because you said at one time, what’s wrong with the Pope unifying Europe? Well, nothing wrong, if the Pope could have unified Europe, but he didn’t. Kevin Barrett: So you’re criticizing him for failing? Laurent Guyénot: Well, the Pope wanted to be the emperor. Why should he do that? The problem is that the Pope’s legitimacy did not exist. The Pope’s ambition to become the emperor, first of all, was based on the donation of Constantine, which is a forgery, a well-known forgery, the greatest, most influential forgery…Kevin Barrett: Catholic intellectuals admit it was a forgery?Laurent Guyénot: Today you can look at Wikipedia, everybody admitted it. Even the church admitted it publicly at some point. It was admitted only in the 16th century, but in reality many people knew it was a forgery even long before that.Kevin Barrett: It’s kind of strange, isn’t it, that Catholics believe their particular institution has this special God-given status that gives the Pope infallibility and so on and so forth. To my mind, that’s the mistake that Catholics make. May Allah forgive me if I’m offending my Catholic friends or getting anything wrong here. But it has always struck me that there is a bit of a contradiction between that belief and historical realities, starting with the donation of Constantine, that created the whole thing, being a forgery.Laurent Guyénot: I would agree with the Orthodox like Dostoevsky, who many Russian Orthodox thought, they maybe would not say it like this today, but they thought the papacy was really satanic. BecauseDostoevsky makes this point that when the Pope wanted to be the Emperor, he was doing exactly what the devil was tempting Jesus to do: “Worship me and I will give you the kingdoms of this world.” Kevin Barrett: So Dostoevsky’s famous Grand Inquisitor passage in the Brothers Karamazov is actually about the Pope.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that passage I quoted is from his journal. So from my viewpoint, what the papacy tried to do, taking advantage of the donation of Constantine and taking advantage also of the weakening of the imperial structure…from the 9th century to the 12th century, the Church was the most elaborate, the most international, the most educated organization in Europe. No kingdom, and not even the empire, could compete with it in terms of power of propaganda, power of networking, of all the resources. It was a tremendous power. So it took advantage of that situation to claim, well, I’m the empire, I’m the emperor. So I should behave like it and I should put all the kingdoms (below me). Something that people don’t really know in European history is that the Pope actually became the suzerain All the kings had to pay homage to the Pope, exactly like a vassal pays homage to his king. So the Pope was the effective emperor, in fact, in competition with the German Empire. And the story lasted, well, let’s say, from the Ottos…it was going fine because actually the Ottonian emperors put their own men as popes, so they had a good relationship with the popes. But then after that, under the Salian emperors, Henry IV, particularly, the one that went to Canossa, and then the story gets incredibly, absolutely very moving and impressive, the story of the struggle between the popes and the Hohenstaufen, ending with Frederick II, Hohenstaufen, who was seen by many people as the man who had succeeded to reunite Europe. Basically, all the kings recognized him as the emperor. He was excommunicated three times. The popes finally managed, through the brother ofthe French king, to slaughter all his children, his grandchildren, and to absolutely eradicate his dynasty. It was a very bloody struggle which basically destroyed forever the hope of a European empire. And from that time on, in the 14th century and 15th century, Europe tried to develop a kind of a system of balance of power. Later there was the Westphalian treaty. And all these treaties tried to make sure that no nation could claim the empire. Even though the Germans continued to call themselves an empire, from the point of view of this new system, they were just one nation among the others, and the system was made so that no unity could ever be achieved in Europe, because not one national power could ever dominate the rest. That was the kind of obsession of the European nations…In theory. But in practice, every nation wanted still to be the strongest. So it ended up with Napoleon calling himself the emperor, which was a disaster also because...well, for different reasons.Kevin Barrett: When we talk about this kind of European identity and even the existence of something called Europe, probably the least obvious division between continents or continental identity would be the split between Europe and Asia. The other continents are generally—it’s easier to geographically delineate them and see why there is not all that much commerce between them. Even to this day, you can’t drive between North and South America. It’s connected by a small land bridge, but that territory is so wwampy and jungly and overgrown and full of crocodiles and bandits that nobody can even go through there. There are water boundaries around all the other continents. And then we have this supercontinent, Eurasia, which is really one continent. And okay, so there are some mountains, the Ural Mountains and so on, but they’re not absolute barriers. And then down at the Spain-Morocco corner, where I am, that’s pretty easy to get across too. It’s like an hour or two on the ferry, and any simple boat can cross at Gibraltar. The Mediterranean has been very easy to cross for millennia. So why do we even talk about Europe in the first place? Why do you think there’s even such a thing as Europe? Like “Europe,” India is just another peninsula off of Eurasia. So there’s an Indian peninsula off Eurasia. There’s the European peninsula off Eurasia. Why is one of them a continent? I don’t get it.Laurent Guyénot: Well, you’re right to point to geography is always the bottom line of the political entities. At the time of the Roman Empire, the Mediterranean was the Middle Sea. Geographically, the sea makes it so easy to travel, all the trade was going through the Mediterranean Sea. So it made sense that they conceived the Mediterranean world as their empire, and they put their borders, and their legions, on the Danube and the Rhine. And that was not a very good, very easy border to manage, but somehow not that bad, because the Danube and the Rhine take their sources at 100 kilometers from each other. So it kind of made sense to keep the barbarians up there. And there are other geographical considerations. And then later, there was, of course, the push of Islam. But it does make sense, once you have China as a civilization. China was in the same position. They had also a problem of borders. That’s why they built the great wall. So humans are not completely dominated by geography. They can still decide, okay, we don’t have a natural border. We don’t have a mountain there, or we don’t have a big river, but we’ll build a wall. So history makes history and geography work together. And finally, China somehow managed to define their own civilization and borders. And like most civilizations, most empires, it’s a multi-ethnic. That’s what an empire is. An empire, contrary to a nation, does not try to impose a single ethnicity. Generally, of course, there is a dominant language and culture, but it’s still multi-ethnic. And then Russia, for some reason, also managed to conquer such a huge territory that they became themselves a multi-ethnic empire. So Europe is left. And then there is Southeast Asia, which has its own culture, very, very specific. So we culturally, we are very different. Europeans do constitute... You know, a kind of cultural unity, so they also have their space geographically. I don’t know why, but that’s a fact, I think.Kevin Barrett: Maybe sort of in the same way that, say, Southeast Asians do…maybe a little less so than Chinese do… In China, the Mandarin writing system has been the writing system for this whole civilization forever, and the languages are much more split in what we call Europe. And what we call Europe, to me, doesn’t really seem to be that much more of a thing than Southeast Asia.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, it’s a good comparison. Southeast Asia is also a disaster in terms of cultural unity, and ultimately they will end up as vassals of China.Kevin Barrett: So that means that the European leaders are going to be agreeing with you, saying we need to unite against Russia in the same way that Southeast Asia needs to unite against China.Laurent Guyénot: Well, that’s what many Europeans think. In the European Union, they are obsessed with, “we are Europe, therefore we are the enemies of Russia.” It’s true. But that’s part of the character of Europe. It’s not inherent in the fact to have a multipolar world. The multipolar world doesn’t have to be aworld of poles at war with each other. It’s just the character of Europe, which is the result of that history that makes them obsessed with going to war with Russia. Russia doesn’t have that pathology. China doesn’t have that pathology. Iran doesn’t have that pathology. It’s a typical European pathology. They think, “if you’re my neighbor, then I’m at war with you." If you’re on the same continent as me. That’s the European pathology. But it doesn’t have to be so. If Europe had managed to be somehow a political empire, or even if you don’twant to use the word empire, had it had a political unity, not only a cultural unity, but a political unity…There’s always borders truggles all the time, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be a constant state of war.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, that makes good sense. If you’d asked me 20 or 30 years ago, I would have said Europe has tremendous potential. It’s been uniting, it’s creating first the common market, then the EU. This is quite amazing. No place else on earth has been able to do this. They’re creating something, they’ve created the single biggest GDP entity in the world. With how many million people? Four or five hundred million people or something, depending on how you count them. You’ve got potentially the world’s biggest, most powerful country that dwarfs the United States in GDP and population. And it’s the heir to this very impressive civilization. Arguably, you could trace it back to the Greco-Roman civilization. Certainly, you can trace it through the western side of Christendom. It’s great things this civilization has done historically. It has so much potential. So 23 years ago, I would have said that this European unity project is wonderful. It’s great. You guys are so much better than us stupid barbaric Americans. Go for it. And then today I look at it, and it’s hard to say whether the European leadership or the American leadership is more idiotic, barbaric, needlessly bellicose, mass murderous, risking the future of the planet, making idiotic decisions, shooting itself in the foot, and on and on and on. So what happened? I mean, Western civilization…it looks like there isn’t much left if there ever was any.Laurent Guyénot: Well, there’s no question that European Union is a total failure, a total disaster. But when Europe was built in the 1950s, the first element was the free market within Europe, we used to call it le marché commun, the common market. They built Europe progressively after the Second World War. They decided once again, you know, let’s create something so that we don’t fight each other all the time. Kevin Barrett: Seemed like a good idea, didn’t it?Laurent Guyénot: It was a good idea. And among the thinkers who put that together, some had the vision…there were different tendencies, different schools. Some wanted a federal Europe. There were different tendencies, but it was a legitimate, necessary direction that Europe was taking. The problem, I think the main problem, was that they thought, mistakenly, “let’s begin with the economic union. Let’s begin with economy and then we’ll see how it develops and then the political aspect will take care of itself later.” And that was, I think, the major mistake. Because once you put the economy first, you build a Europe of economists, of industrialists, of lobbies, industrial lobbies. And that’s what we have today. We have a European Union which is completely dominated either by the finance, the economic aspect, or by the United States. Because when Europe was decided,, when Europe was starting to build itself, it was not, as many right-wing nationalists say, a project imposed by the United States on Europe. That’s not true at all.Kevin Barrett: No, the United States was afraid that suddenly it would be eclipsed by Europe.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, but they managed to somehow take a good deal of control of the European Union to the point that now, honestly, objectively, Europe is a colony of the United States. There are many politicians In Europe who want to emancipate Europe from the grip of the United States, but at this moment, they’re definitely not in power. In Germany, for example, there used to be Gerhard Schroeder, who was a friend of Putin. He was a good friend of Russia. And this kind of politician in Germany had still that kind of European vision. The problem is that nobody in Europe, except the Germans, wants to accept that the natural leader of Europe is Germany. That’s been the case throughout Europe. And being French, and having thought a lot about it…Kevin Barrett: You hate to admit it. Laurent Guyénot: I hate to admit it, but the Germans are definitely better in many ways, at least at building a state. So that’s been the case. It’s a little bit mysterious, but the Germans have always been the leader of Europe. And the British hated it. The French hated it. That’s why they destroyed Germany again and again in World War I, in World War II. And they will never admit German superiority in any way.Kevin Barrett: Well, the Russians aren’t that pleased with Germans either. The Russians have a problem with the Germans since World War II.Laurent Guyénot: Well, yeah, but I think the recent North Stream explosion is very, very symbolic. Because it shows that Germany had a desire to deal with Russia in a friendly or at least a normal way. But then their pipeline was blown up, and they knew very well it was not Russia. When it happened, everybody said in Europe, “oh, it’s the Russians, they blew up their own pipeline,” which didn’t make any sense at all. And everybody in Germany, of course, knew it was not. And then recently I read they made some discrete investigations and the conclusion is that it’s the Ukrainians who did it.Kevin Barrett: It must be the Ukrainians, right? They were on like a little sailing boat or something and they sailed over there and sent a couple of frogmen down with scuba tanks. Yeah.Laurent Guyénot: And my interpretation is that they used some stupid sentence that Joe Biden said. You remember Joe Biden said in response to a question by a journalist who asked, “how are you going to prevent Russia and Germany from having this pipeline?” And he said, “don’t worry, we know how to do it.” You know, which was a really stupid thing to say. But I think, you know, when the Ukrainians heard that, they’d say, well, now we can do it and we can blame Biden for it.Kevin Barrett: I think Seymour Hersh was probably right. It probably was actually American-led.Laurent Guyénot: Well, it could have been, but I think it was really the Ukrainians and maybe a little bit the British, too.Kevin Barrett: But the fact is that... NATO helped. It wasn’t just Ukrainians. Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, I don’t know. I don’t know. Kevin Barrett: The Americans run NATO.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, it could be. But in any case, the Germans are now in the position to continue to help Ukraine. I’m hoping, I don’t know, but this situation is so crazy. When are the Germans going to wake up and say our enemies are the Ukrainians, not the Russians?Kevin Barrett: Well, the Germans, it seems, have been trained very well to deny their own history. When somebody is doing terrible things to them, they just accept it and then lie about it and blame the enemy of whoever is doing the terrible things to them. This goes back to World War II, when the Germans were brutally occupied and arguably genocided to a certain extent by the Russians and even more so the Americans. And they were then brainwashed into imagining that World War II was all Germany’s fault. And they became self-hating Germans trained to lie about their own history and basically blame themselves, the victims, and exonerate the perpetrators. That’s exactly what they did with World War II. And that’s exactly what they did with the Nord Stream pipeline. They obediently lie. Rather than facing the truth that the American empire is killing you, which it did in World War II with the genocidal occupation of Germany, and which it did with the Nord Stream bombing, the Germans have been so intimidated, brainwashed, and so on, that they just instinctively lie against their own interest. People talk about self-hating Jews. I don’t think so. I think the problem is the self-hating Germans.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, that’s right, yeah. That’s why it’s very, very tragic. But that’s true. That’s one of the central problems of Europe now. Because for many reasons, I still feel Europe can kind of come out of the situation it is in now only with the leadership of Germany. I think only Germany, for example, can rebuild a good relationship with Russia. It will not happen directly between France and Russia. It has to start with Germany and Russia. For many reasons, I think only when Germans overcome what you said: Can they impose a movement of a new awareness in Europe? But it’s very difficult to imagine, because we are still living in Europe... It may be hard for Americans to understand that, because Americans think that Europe is a country, basically. But it’s not. It’s a constant battlefield. The French continue to hate the Germans, the British continue to hate the French. I mean, it’s really crazy, the absolute absence of love for Europe. Basically, Europeans hate Europe. They hate the European Union. Of course, that’s part of the problem. They hate the political system that they have.Kevin Barrett: You can’t completely blame them.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, that’s correct. But under that, there is no love of Europe as a civilization. There is no awareness that Europe should at least reach some kind of unity. The right-wingers think France is the light of the world. Kevin Barrett: But even worse, Laurent, in my opinion, is this attempt by people on the European right, including some people linked to Arktos and so on, to unite Europe and create a European identity by scapegoating Muslims and immigrants and “immigrant Muslims” and basically hating all the darker-skinned people in Europe. And falsely labeling them all as Muslims, or identifying them as Muslims, when in fact there are all kinds of Hindus from India, and black Christians from sub-Saharan Africa, and dark-skinned people from Southeast Asia, and all these places. But what they’ve done is they’ve constructed this notion of the Islamic other, the immigrant, the invader, the Muslim invader, and used that image, that stereotypical image, to hate an external enemy, and thereby create some kind of imaginary European unity. And this project is being fueled by the Islamophobia that the Jews, the Zionist Jews, have injected deep into them. The 9/11 false flag operation was primarily a trauma-based mind control op designed to produce long-term multi-generational Islamophobia. So I think that all these problems, they’re actually not as bad as this proposed solution of hating the dark-skinned Muslim immigrant invader. What do you think?Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, you’re right. The Nouvelle Droite that I mentioned, and Arktos and all these people, it’s a very diverse movement. I think Alain de Benoît is much above the crowd. But they are a little bit… They are very Zionized. They are very afraid to criticize Israel and they are always ready to blame the Muslims. That’s generally true. That’s one of the reasons I’m also happy to be published by Artos, because I bring a little bitof a different perspective. I’m not afraid to say, “until you study the Jewish question, you’re not going to understand anything that happens to Europe. So, do your homework.” And they’re not doing it in general. And I’ve talked openly to many of them in France. I say, why, for example, do you idealize all those French intellectuals of the 19th century? And you never ever mentioned that they were very, very disturbed by Jewish ways of dealing with their own society. And why do you never tell us about the Jewish question from the point of view of all these intellectuals? It’s a really big problem. But again, it’s a diverse movement, and there is a tendency, there’s part of the new right is exactly like Steve Bannon, and actually some of them are very much on the same line, you know, which is a line dictated by Israel. So, yeah, that’s the problem.Kevin Barrett: It’s kind of sad that Bannon, who presents himself as some kind of traditional Catholic, is operating as a virtual agent of Tel Aviv. I mean, where’s is that coming from? Did he sign a contract?Laurent Guyénot: In the Epstein files, I think there is an email where he says to Epstein that he’s a Zionist. Or even if he sayshe’s not, these people are fraud, absolutely.Kevin Barrett: Maybe they Epsteined him.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, that’s true. That’s the problem. Kevin Barrett: I’d like to see a greater development of the more advanced part of the European New Right. People like you, Alexander Wolfheze, who’s actually Muslim.Laurent Guyénot: Yeah, that’s right. He’s the one who introduced me into Arktos, actually. He interviewed me once. HJis wife is Iranian, I think. So there is this element also of being friendly to Iran and friendly to the Russians. So it’s kind of the diverse movement. But it’s definitely a line of thinking of Europe and not thinking that the nation state is the absolute ultimate ideal political reality, when in fact it’s just something that the Europeans invented because they could never unite with each other. And then after they invented it, they exported it throughout the world. And then they created the United Nations as if the whole world has to be a bunch of nations. And so China accepts the game and they call themselves a nation. But they are not a nation in the sense of nationalism. Russia is not a nation. It’s a multinational state. So the concept of nation has to be really re-evaluated and kind of diminished in the mind of most people. It has become one of the big problems. And in reverse, the concept of empire has to be studied with a little bit of subtlety. And that’s what Alain de Benoît does in his foreword. He explains what the concept of empire is. It’s not at all what we imagine today, because we understand empire as being the American empire, but that was not the idea in Europe.Kevin Barrett: That’s a really good place to leave it, because I think that’s such an important issue that hardly anybody is aware of, is to unthinkingly accept the world of nation states without asking where it came from. We unthinkingly accept that empires are bad without asking where they came from. And so a rethink of this could be a very important project for humanity’s future.Well, thank you so much, Laurent Guyénot. I love your terrific work. Laurent Guyénot: Thank you, Kevin. Kevin Barrett: You’ve certainly been willing to rethink a whole lot of things quite courageously. So keep up the great work. God bless and look forward to talking again soon. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News linkOn July 20, Yemen’s AnsurAllah government—the bravest and most principled in the Arab world—closed the Red Sea to Saudi, US, and Israeli shipping. They slammed Bab al-Madab shut exactly one week after the Saudis bombed Sanaa International Airport to prevent a flight from Tehran from landing. That flight was carrying AnsurAllah officials who had attended the momentous, massively-attended funeral for the Supreme Leader of Iran, Imam Ali Khamenei, the spiritual leader of tens of millions of people throughout the region and around the world.Memo to Trump: Murdering spiritual leaders revered by tens if not hundreds of millions of people is probably not a good idea.Mainstream media claimed that AnsurAllah’s retaliation on July 13, which targeted Abha International Airport in southwestern Saudi Arabia, “shattered a four-year truce.” But it was Saudi Arabia’s bombing Sanaa Airport, not Yemen’s retaliation, that “shattered the truce.”The Saudis claimed that it wasn’t they who had bombed the airport, it was their Riyadh-based puppet occupation regime. That collection of quislings is obviously illegitimate, a mere catspaw for the Saudis. But the oil-rich sheikhs of Riyadh have used their ill-gotten billions to purchase fake “international recognition” for their pathetic pseudo-Yemeni stooges. Despite that superficial veneer of “international recognition,” nobody was fooled by the Saudis’ diversionary blather.What’s more, that “four-year truce” was a smokescreen for the Saudis’ genocidal blockade of Yemen. Around half a million Yemenis have died, four million have been displaced from their homes, and millions of children have faced severe hunger and lack of medical care due to the Saudi war and blockade.By bombing Sanaa Airport, the Saudis (and their Epstein-class bosses) offered AnsurAllah a perfect opportunity to break that genocidal blockade and regain access to food and medicine. The Saudi bombing of Sanaa was an act of war. Yemen and its legitimate government, AnsurAllah, had every right to respond. And respond they did—not just bombing a Saudi airport, but by closing Bab al-Mandab, and with it the whole Red Sea, one week later. Their “blockade for a blockade” tit-for-tat will likely not only collapse the Saudi genocide of Yemen, but also trigger immense geopolitical repercussions.With the Red Sea closed, Saudi oil exports are being severely throttled. Iran had already closed the Strait of Hormuz, and with it the Persian Gulf, eliminating the main Saudi export route. The Saudis had responded by piping oil across the country to the Red Sea port of Yanbu, and from there to Asia through the Bab al-Mandab. That allowed the Saudis to continue exporting about half as much oil as their average before February 28. Now their Red Sea exports are also being choked off. The net result of the closure of Bab al-Madab will be a doubling of the pain imposed by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, potentially creating “one crisis too many” for the global economy. Prior to the Red Sea closure, about 20% of the world’s oil supplies went through Hormuz. Due to various workarounds, the actual reduction to global oil supplies was less than 10%. Indeed, 7% is probably a good estimate. So now that AnsurAllah is taking another 7% off the market, the net shortfall is heading up to around 15%. This doubling of the oil-shortfall pain is happening just as the world’s emergency reserves are getting dangerously close to “tank bottom.” Due to the coming oil shock, which will exacerbate pre-existing structural vulnerabilities including the AI bubble and larger debt bubble, it seems highly likely that the global economy will suffer extremely severe shocks before the end of the year, for reasons discussed by Michael Hudson and Ron Unz.Yemen’s AnsurAllah leaders are not a timid bunch. Can you imagine any other government with the guts to put “damn the Jews” on their flag? (X link to video)So now the Red Sea, alongside the Persian Gulf, is closed for renovations. But what kind of renovations?It’s actually the whole region that badly needs major remodeling, if not a complete overhaul. Corrupt, illegitimate Epstein-class stooges need to be removed from power, and replaced by courageous, God-fearing men who stand on principle and are not afraid to risk and sacrifice their lives. And that isn’t just true of West Asia, but also the United States, where people who bravely stand against the Epstein class, like Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene—and maybe Rho Khanna and Jon Ossoff on the other side of the aisle—risk suffering the fate of Graham Platner and Karim Khan at best, or Charlie Kirk at worst. The fact that ZOG got rid of Massie and Greene without manufacturing fake sex scandals may be a tribute to those two leaders’ impeccability. If you have to make up AI videos ludicrously envisioning Massie having threesomes with AOC and Ilhan Omar, it suggests that your target’s actions in real life don’t leave you much room for ginning up dubious me-too stories.The AnsurAllah leaders, for their part, don’t have to worry about Jewy sex scandals. The empire will just flat-out try to murder them. Fortunately they, unlike Charlie Kirk, don’t hire Israeli-linked security companies to run their events and fit them out with microphones.AnsurAllah’s leaders, whose approach to Islam is roughly midway between the Sunni and Shia interpretations, might get my vote if they ever ran for Caliph. They uphold Islam’s insistence on justice. They do the right thing even at the risk of martyrdom. And they follow the Prophetic hadith “the best jihad is a word of truth flung in the face of a tyrant.”AnsurAllah backs up its demands for justice and truth with courageous military action when necessary. That, too, is the tradition of the Prophet, PBUH. The heroes of Yemen weren’t afraid to stand up for the Palestinian genocide victims as early as October 2023. They have fired more than 100 drone and missile attacks on Israel-bound ships, and hitting Israel itself with hundreds of cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and long-range drones.And now, closing the Red Sea to genocide-complicit shipping ups the ante. AnsurAllah is becoming the stuff of legend.All hail the heroic Houthis, who are almost singlehandedly saving the honor of the entire Arab world!Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkPress TV interviews Kevin Barrett, 11/22/26Press TV: Hegseth and top military officials appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee to defend White House’s $87.6 billion emergency budget request. The War Secretary revealed that the Iran war has already cost the U.S. $37.5 billion, warning that troops training will be curtailed without immediate funding. Democratic lawmakers have sharply criticized the Trump administration for Hegseth’s failure, with some warning against another endless war with no clear outcome.Some lawmakers also shamed the Pentagon for seeking unlimited money for bombs while ordinary Americans struggle to feed their families.Video linkDr. Barrett, always a pleasure to serve you. Hope you’re safe and doing well out there in Morocco. Your thoughts? Just earlier this week, I should say there’s an Ipsis poll. I don’t know if you saw it. There’s an 68 percent, record high 68% disapproval of the war on Iran. It trumps Afghanistan at 65, Vietnam at 66, and Iraq at 67. I know there’s a standard percentage of deviation here, and they could all be one or two points up and down. But nevertheless, it ranks as supposedly, for the time being, the most unpopular war with American people in U.S. history since records were kept.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, that’s not surprising because it was the most unpopular war, at the beginning of any war, that the United States has ever begun. In fact, the difference then was even greater. At that time, the approval rating was as low as about a third of the American people. Normally at the beginning of a war, there’s a rally around the flag effect. So normally, a huge majority of Americans, for whatever reasons, brainwashing, I suppose, being the biggest one, tend to support their country and their leadership when the war begins. But this time, that didn’t happen.After 9/11, it was 90 percent approval of invading Afghanistan. And this time it was like 30% worth of weak, lukewarm approval. And it’s only been going down since then. So this is an incredibly unpopular war, as it should be. Trump ran for president in 2016 by criticizing his predecessors for getting involved and continuing in these forever wars, has found himself in the mother of all forever wars that’s going to result in the mother of all defeats, because now the mother of all surrenders, the MOU, is going to have to be redone in an even more unfavorable to the US and its Zionist masters way, and a more favorable to Iran way, than the original MOU. They’re going to have to actually follow it up front. Trump’s signature means nothing.So Trump has gotten his country into a real mess. Losing this war as badly as they’re losing it, and finishing it with a surrender as outrageous as the surrender that’s going to be coming up, is going to really be a big blow to the dwindling power and prestige of the U.S. empire at this critical time in history.Press TV: What’s wild at this point, Dr. Barrett, Donald Trump’s still selling the same pretext that we need to stop Iran’s ability to build a bomb. I mean, didn’t you do that with the June 12-day war last year? You bombed the heck out of three key nuclear facilities, basically with bunker bunkers. So God knows what the damage is, like layers and layers beneath the ground. And back then you said we put Iran’s nuclear program out of commission.Kevin Barrett: Well, if you look at some of the videos on social media of Hegseth being grilled by the congresspeople about this, you almost have to feel sorry for Hegseth. He’s in such a terrible position. They asked him about why he said that they had completely put all of Iran’s rockets and drones out of commission halfway through the second week of March. And so obviously, they’ve made all of these bombastic claims of victory that are the precise opposite of the truth, which is, again, a huge political liability.They could have gotten out of this. The American empire actually could do very well just through diplomacy in the region. And indeed, rather than bombing Iran and making it more likely that Iran at some point will conclude that it needs a nuclear weapon to ensure its own security as an existential issue against an existential threat... what they (the US) is doing is they’re trying to convince Iran that it might actually need a nuclear weapon, which Iran doesn’t want and is resistant to.So everything the US is doing is completely counterproductive. It’s all about protecting Israel, and all of this is making Israel look that much worse. It’s reshaping the region in a way that’s ultimately going to put Israel completely out of business. So once again, “they plot and God plans, and God is the best of planners.” Because as they plot, they’re undermining all of their own goals.Press TV: And before I let you go, really quick, Dr. Kevin Barrett. At this point, okay, dropping Hegseth, they’re asking for another $60-plus billion in funding. My question is, with respect to the 37 or 38, let’s round it out to $40 billion you’ve already spent in this imposed war against Iran. What have you achieved? And what are you going to achieve with another near $70 billion added to it?Kevin Barrett: Well, they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, and that seems to be what this insane administration wants to do. After $30 billion already spent, and that’s a gross underestimate, they want to just keep spending the same kind of money or more to do exactly the same things that don’t work.Iran has its weapons well protected under mountains. They weren’t able to bomb them and cause any real disruption in Iran’s ability to hit American targets and allied targets and Israeli targets with its drones and missiles, which are actually getting more powerful and more accurate—as big US media, starting with the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, have been admitting recently here in the United States. They’re admitting that Iran actually is hitting targets with more power and more accuracy. They’re more impossible to stop than they were at the beginning. And of course, that’s because Iran started by firing its older stuff and they saved their better stuff and are building even new generations of even better stuff all the time.So this is really a stupid war as well as an evil, immoral war. And I think it’s going to continue to be the most politically unpopular war in American history. It’s probably going to set new records for unpopularity. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link (Or watch ad-free at the top of my Substack—a thank you to those who made this week’s Fundrazr a success.)Does schoolyard bullying make good foreign policy? Jewish-Zionist neocon fanatic Michael Ledeen thought so. Ledeen, who relocated to hell last year, is best remembered for “the Ledeen doctrine”:"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small, crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."Ledeen’s comparison between bullies beating up smaller children, and nations mass-murdering people from weaker nations, is revealing. Normal people hate bullies and oppose bullying. Normal people also hate wars of aggression, and are only willing to fight and die to defend their country, but not to attack or invade another nation.But people are also, in varying degrees, susceptible to manipulation by sadists and psychopaths. And that’s where Ledeen and the neocons come in. By cleverly manipulating words and images, with no regard for truth, they can make bullying sound cool, and wars of aggression a decennial duty.Bullies, despite being hated by all normal people, can get away with their despicable behavior when nobody has the courage to stand against them. A schoolyard sadist can torment a smaller child as long as his classmates look on passively. But when one of them intervenes, it gives courage to the others, and pretty soon the bully will be taken down.And sometimes the bully picks on the wrong guy. Trump got away with his crimes against Venezuela. He gets away with threatening Greenland and Canada. He’s gotten away with sending ICE goons after illegal immigrants and ordinary people alike. He gets away with endlessly spouting buffoonish, third-grade level verbal sadism on social media. He gets away with slapping countries around with absurd tariffs. He gets away with strong-arming FIFA to suspend its penalties against American soccer players. Sometimes it seems that the whole world is so shocked by Trump’s disgusting moronic psychopathy that it can’t react. But on February 28, goaded by his fellow bully Netanyahu, Trump picked on the wrong country. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been prepared to win this war throughout the past 25 years, and has gotten stronger with every passing year. It’s a nation that loathes tyrants and bullies. Iran’s majority religion, Shia Islam, makes a point of remembering and despising the tyrannical bully Yazid, who murdered the Prophet’s grandson Hussein on the plains of Karabala. By perfectly embodying the Yazid archetype, Trump has succeeded in uniting the Iranian nation, and increasingly the rest of the Shia and Islamic worlds—and with them, gradually, all of humanity—against the big, stupid, ever-more-vulnerable American bully, and the mean little Zionist psychopath who is goading him on.Trump’s ever-more-pathetic attempts to intimidate Iran into submission failed, decisively, months ago. On April 7, as an 8pm “open Hormuz or else” deadline approached, Trump tweeted: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”Iran held its nose and ignored him. Trump backed down, blustering about a two-week reprieve. Iran kept ignoring him and standing by its demands. Trump kept projectile-vomiting unhinged threats. Iran dodged the projectiles and continued ignoring him (and matching US attacks at every step on the escalation ladder.) On June 17, Trump accepted Iran’s demands by signing the MOU. It was an undisguised US surrender. But political pushback led by Zionists, and the inevitable buyer’s remorse, led Trump to re-ignite the war by violating virtually every single point of the MOU. Now we are back to unhinged threats, attacks on civilian infrastructure, and the only slightly postponed countdown-to-apocalypse, including the likelihood of mass starvation in the not-so-distant future.The likely outcome of a US-Israeli war on Iran—Iranian victory, Zio-American catastrophe—has been well-known for more than 20 years. Even the Atlantic, the leading neocon rag, admitted that Gen. Paul Van Riper’s Millennium Challenge 2002 war game exercise, which resulted in a clear Iranian victory, was correct: “I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers: You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. You have to make diplomacy work.” And that was before Iran had built its formidable rocket and drone forces housed in impregnable underground bases.And the way to make diplomacy work, especially with Iran, is through reason, not bullying. Trump, whose powers of reason are extremely limited, thinks he can endlessly bully, intimidate, and terrorize people and nations into backing down. That may have worked for Trump when he was laundering Kosher Nostra money through his casinos and hotels, but mafia methodologies have their limits when it comes to international relations. Mafia bullies often try to force people into submission by threatening their families. Did Trump, or his minions—I’m thinking specifically of Pete Hegseth—imagine that slaughtering 160 little girls, many of them the daughters of Revolutionary Guard officers, would make Iran capitulate? If so, they miscalculated badly. The murder of the girls of the Minab school has become the rallying cry for Iran and its supporters, just as the deliberate genocidal murder of tens of thousands of Gazan children has become a rallying cry for Palestine.Iran’s heroic “sacred defense” is turning the whole world against the American bully and his mean little Zionist manipulator. Most consequentially, in the short term, Iran is showing its backers, Russia and China, that it can absorb all the punishment Trump can dish out while drawing the Americans ever-deeper into the Hormuz quagmire. At this point (midsummer) it seems that the US has exhausted much of its limited supply of standoff weapons, which cannot be replenished for three to five years. The US has used one-third of its Tomahawks, JASSMs, and SM-6s, and half or more of its PrSMs, SM-3s, THAADs, and Patriots. Russia and China, seeing how a much smaller nation has been able to “rope-a-dope” the Americans into exhausting themselves, cannot help seeing their opportunity to put the bully out of his misery, whether kinetically or by leveraging their ability to do so.It seems that the Americans, led by their moron-in-chief, badly misunderestimated* Iran. High on their own propaganda supply, they imagined Iran as backwards and medieval. In reality, it ranks third in the world in engineering graduates. They imagined Iran oppressing women. In fact, Iranian women have the highest literacy rate in the region, dominate Iranian universities, and are heavily involved in designing and building the rockets and drones that have decimated US Mideast bases.The biggest reason the American bully underestimated his Iranian target can be summed up in one word: religion. Western ruling classes, those Anti-Religious Religious Fanatics, generally hold religion in contempt…and that goes double for Islam. They imagine that all religious people—especially Muslims—are stupid, primitive, and unsophisticated. And while that description may apply to many Christian Zionists from the American Bible Belt (take Pete Hegseth, please) it definitely fails in relation to Iranian seminaries in places like Qom and Mashhad, where the most rigorous classical education on Earth is pursued by a great many highly intelligent people. For an introductory sketch, read Roy Mottahedeh’s classic The Mantle of the Prophet.Religion and patriotism have long been the glue that holds societies together and spurs them to the sacrifices that war demands. By murdering the Supreme Leader of Iran and his family, along with the schoolgirls of Minab, the American bully stumbled into a hornets’ nest. Iran is united in outrage and ready to fight on for years or decades if necessary. And it has the overt or covert support of much of the world, starting with China, the world’s biggest economic and manufacturing power, and Russia, the world’s biggest nuclear power.The neocon Zionist fools are going to deeply regret having followed Ledeen’s advice, imagining that they could get away with picking on the Islamic Republic of Iran.*If you thought we had a moron-in-chief back when Bush was coining Bushisms like this, get a load of Trump. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkAbove: Ken Meyercord’s award-winning film “So-Called Holocaust Denial.”----Below: Kevin Barrett and Ken Meyercord discuss “So-Called Holocaust Denial”:Rumble link Bitchute linkKen Meyercord, who spent years as Washington, DC’s most controversial talk show host, writes:Inspired by a trip to the Sundance Film Festival in Utah last January, I’ve been submitting my magnus opus, So-called Holocaust Denial, to film festivals around the world. It’s won some awards.Lest you think this is some tremendous breakthrough in thwarting the censorship surrounding the Holocaust, let me tell you what I’ve learned about the film festival business: it’s a racket. There are hundreds of so-called festivals out there but most consist of no more than a website and a repository for submission fees. They don’t actually hold a festival, just announce the winners on their website while providing no opportunity for an audience to view the films. I’ve submitted my film to some 25 festivals and, despite winning at four (with 15 or so still to be heard from), I can’t say for certain if anyone has actually watched my film—not even a reviewer, much less an audience. There are legitimate festivals out there who host a real festival and show the winners to a live audience, but it’s hard to tell the legit from the fraudulent online. Still, I consider the $20-25 submission fee worth it if there is hope at least a reviewer or two will actually watch the film. (You can watch the film here).P.S. I’ve reached the limit of my financial resources ($500). If you think this is a worthy endeavor (despite the caveats above), I would welcome any financial help you are willing (and able) to offer (all contributions will remain anonymous). you can do so through my ZELLE account ([email protected]), Note that I am not a non-profit (501c3) organization. If you prefer, you can make a tax-deductible contribution through The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH.com)here.Interview TranscriptKevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audiovisual. I’m Kevin Barrett, bringing you interesting people doing good work, whether in written form or— sometimes—filmmakers. And that would be Ken Meyercord, an intrepid filmmaker and TV host out of Washington, D.C. who has, for quite some time, been putting heretical material on the D.C. airwaves. And he’s got a new film out. I’m not sure quite how new. It’s called So-Called Holocaust Denial. So, hey, Ken, welcome. How’s it going?Ken Meyercord: Hi. It is not very new. I did it in January.Kevin Barrett: …So-Called Holocaust Denial. That’s a provocative title. And we all know that there are atrocities. And there were World War II atrocities. This is what happened to Dresden. But that wasn’t the Germans that did that, was it?Ken Meyercord: No, they didn’t do it at all. The good guys did. This was their work. And I was mentioning to you earlier, I just discovered a documentary made by 2001. It was on the History Channel. I mean, it’s big time. But one of their episodes, there are about 15 of them, was called The Aftermath of the War. And they talked about the fact that a quarter of all German housing was destroyed by the end of the war, and the cities firebombed and nothing much left of them and whatnot, and how they were starving, millions of Germans, or a million at least, according to James Bacque. And that was in his book, Other Losses. And between the starvation and… the German POWs after the war spent the winter of 1945-46 out in the cold, digging foxholes for themselves. So a number of them died too in that winter. Anyway, this is a great book about all that. But the movie, and I should have got a clip up of it, The War in Color. It’s called that because they discovered a bunch of color photography that had never been seen before on the war. This is not one of them. But they talked about the aftermath. And usually that’s not included in World War II documentaries. You know, we just, we won the war and everybody’s happy and freedom and authoritarian. Marshall plan, right. Kevin Barrett: whole thing. Yeah, we rebuilt Germany, treated the Germans so nicely. Yeah, right.Ken Meyercord: Yeah. Anyway, so that’s, and Dresden was the showcase of what we did to the German cities.Kevin Barrett: It almost looks like Gaza, doesn’t it?Ken Meyercord: Well, interestingly, no. These buildings are still standing because they weren’t bombed with explosives, but with fire bombs. So buildings, the concrete and steel buildings survived, but everything else was demolished.Kevin Barrett: It’s a ravaged landscape in any case, city-scale.Ken Meyercord: Yeah. And I just realized in making my movie—I can’t believe it never occurred to me. One of the most impactful images that convinces people how horrible the Holocaust was is the shots of the piles of bodies in the concentration camps.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, we might actually have some of those. Let me see… Is this a pile of bodies?Ken Meyercord: That is a pile of bodies, interestingly. That’s a pile of German dead in Dresden being cremated. Or an attempt to cremate them. And the interesting thing about that is there’s a Zionist outfit out there called March for Life, I think it is. And they use that in their tours. They take young Jewish kids of tours of the concentration camps, and they use this shot in their publicity, thinking, well, it’s a pile of people being cremated, it must be Jews.Kevin Barrett: Right.Ken Meyercord: In fact, it’s Germans. Kevin Barrett: Yeah. Holocaust means a burnt offering. And actually, Dresden was more of a Holocaust probably than Auschwitz.Ken Meyercord: Go ahead to those files.Kevin Barrett: Okay, so let’s look at the others. Okay, so we talked about atrocities are very real. Wartime atrocities are common, and this was Dresden firebombed. Kurt Vonnegut wrote about that famously in Slaughterhouse-Five, if you want a vivid description. And James Bacque wrote about these other atrocities against Germany, including after the war when possibly a million POWs, German POWs, were starved to death, deliberately dead of exposure. And Germans were then ethnically cleansed from the lands in that area. And many of them died as they were forced to basically march across winter landscapes with no warm clothing and no food.Ken Meyercord: Transported the same cattle cars that the Jews had been transported in and placed in the same concentration camps. Repatriated Germans as late as 1961.Kevin Barrett: Interesting. And we don’t get that stressed in our history textbooks. Well, other wartime atrocities and exaggerations and propaganda around atrocities, that happens all the time with wars, as we know, with the Israelis lying about all these supposed Hamas rapes, which did not happen on October 7, 2023. And then, of course, the Israelis are the ones who rape everything in sight. Well, here’s Time Magazine talking about the Balkans Wars of the late 90s.Ken Meyercord: The UN accusing, finally, the Israelis of all sorts of sexual crimes in their prisons and whatnot?Kevin Barrett: Right, training dogs to rape prisoners and so on. Yeah, the Israelis, I mean, every accusation is a confession for them. But anyway, so here’s a Time magazine from the Balkans Wars. In this case, I think Serbia got most of the bad publicity. This was after the breakup of the Soviet Union in the 90s, right?Ken Meyercord: Yeah, well, it was, yeah, yeah, this was, yeah, must have been. Anyway, so... That’s a refugee camp in Bosnia, or rather the Serbian parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina. You want me to tell the story about it?Kevin Barrett: Yeah, give me the short version.Ken Meyercord: Oh, yeah. Okay. Anyway, a British Correspondent Penny Marshall of ITV went to this camp and took this picture and it appeared on the cover of Time magazine. Supposedly those are Bosnians who are in a Serbian concentration camp behind barbed wire. Well, it turns out Marshall had crawled into an enclosure where there was a tool shed, and the enclosure was surrounded by barbed wire. So she’s the one behind the barbed wire. And these are Bosnians in a Serbian refugee camp. It’s a schoolyard, actually. They’re free to come and go as they wished. But that doesn’t quite fit the storyline that Bosnians would seek refuge in something the Serbs set up. So anyway, pictures like that got us all bent out of shape, and pretty soon we were bobbing Serbian positions in Bosnia-Herzegovina.Kevin Barrett: Right. And people are still arguing about those wars. I was recently in Croatia at an E. Michael Jones conference, and there’s still a lively discussion about, you know, who is committing the worst atrocities at that time. Well, here’s another atrocity story that sold a war. The famous Iraqi baby incubator story worked up by the Hill and Knowlton PR firm with, I believe the Bush was on the board of that, wasn’t he?Ken Meyercord: Probably. Oh, yeah. Yeah, Hill and Knowlton. I don’t know. He was the one who spread the story even after it had been exposed as a fraud by Canada. And he must assume, well, that’s Canada. The Americans don’t know about this. But that little girl is the daughter of the Kuwaitian ambassador and was not even in Kuwait at the time the incident was supposed toKevin Barrett: The evil Iraqi soldiers ripping the poor little babies out of their incubators and throwing them on the cold floor to their deaths. That was the way she told it.Ken Meyercord: Bush kept telling the story after it was exposed in Canada in his election bid. So we got two scandals in one.Kevin Barrett: Right, right. So yeah, atrocity stories to sell wars are a dime a dozen, or a doom a dozen. Here’s a gas story. We’re not quite to the gas chambers yet, but we’re at the gas attack story. And this actually was, you know, more and more information has been coming out about these false allegations against the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria, which we, the Americans and our Israeli masters, overthrew in order to install ISIS and al-Qaeda in power in Syria. And they’re now running Syria on our behalf. I mean, you can’t make this stuff up.Ken Meyercord: Well, this is why I consider it It’s important that we understand the frauds behind the Holocaust story. You know, a lot of people say, oh, that’s old news, who cares? But it’s sort of the…The harbinger. The whole world has come to believe a hoax. It’s still going on in the Holocaust story. I guess you could say that was to justify what had already been done, rather than to justify a war that they want to get into, the warmongers.Kevin Barrett: Well, a lot of people think the Holocaust story or the gas chamber story began as British war propaganda. And they may have exaggerated stories that were based on the de-lousing with Zyklon B that was going on in the German camps. And so then British propaganda ran with it and built it up. And it’s taken on a bit of a life of its own, you might say. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves there.Ken Meyercord: Yeah, well, okay, we’re rambling, but that’s where old man, what else can you do?Kevin Barrett: Okay, so let’s go from the Syrian gas, which actually...Ken Meyercord: I want to mention something with regard to what you just said. You see, I’m an old man, my memory doesn’t work real well. But, oh... The gas chamber story was actually started by the Polish Underground, which as you rightly point out, they got Zyklon B, which was used for disinfectants and gas chambers for disinfecting clothing. And somebody had the bright idea to embellish on that story. And interestingly, after the war, in his memoirs, Churchill doesn’t even mention the Holocaust. When he heard from British intelligence, who heard it from the Polish underground, that one and a half million Jews had been executed, Churchill called it the worst crime in the history of civilization. And then when the war’s over, he doesn’t even mention it in his memoirs.Kevin Barrett: Yeah. Churchill, Eisenhower, and De Gaulle. None of them mentioned it.Ken Meyercord: Yeah.Kevin Barrett: Anyway, I just wanted to toss that in. Right. So here we are in the gas chamber stories, and there was a whole back-and-forth discussion for quite some time about which camps supposedly had gas chambers and which ones didn’t. And I think originally at some point everybody believed Dachau had gas chambers. Then that story changed, and now all the mainstream historians say it didn’t. But the tour guide here, Martin Zeidens, says that it did.Ken Meyercord: Yeah, he was an intern there, and he claims he witnessed gassings. And you can see the sign if you can read it. It’s a little hard, but it says, gas chamber disguised. This is what’s at the door of the supposed gas chamber. Disguised as a shower room, never used as a gas chamber.Kevin Barrett: So it’s a gas chamber, but it wasn’t a gas chamber.Ken Meyercord: Historians or Mr. Seidens saw it. But that’s typical of, you know, eyewitness testimony, isn’t it, about the Holocaust?Kevin Barrett: Right, yeah, it’s quite amazing, some of the testimony. Here’s another bit of testimony, The Angel at the Fence by Herman Rosenblatt. Tell us about that.Ken Meyercord: Yes. Yeah, I love this one. This was one of the more recent ones. I don’t know how many years old it is now. But Oprah Winfrey, you know, she has a book club or something and she’d bring in the authors and talk about some book. And she called this the greatest love story she’d ever told on her show. Well, it turns out to be totally fraudulent. And in fact, it was proved fraudulent before the book had even been published.Kevin Barrett: What’s the story of this book? Ken Meyercord: Somebody brings him food and gives him food. Yeah, yeah, that’s the angel. They’ll shoot four apples to him or something. He’s in a concentration camp. I haven’t read the book and won’t. I can’t imagine what it’s like. But they did something like that. It was such a romantic, sad, tragic story. That ends well. Somehow they get hooked up, I think, after the war and marry each other. Oprah is famous for touting false stories. Kevin Barrett: Well, this is a better story than Anthony Blinken’s stepfather claiming that he escaped from a gas chamber by walking backwards, and they didn’t notice that he was shuffling towards the door, and he snuck out the door before they closed it and gassed everybody.Ken Meyercord: Well, that brings, I don’t know whether this is the time, but you know Irene Sisplot, the lady who defecated the family jewels. We don’t have any visual evidence of her defecating jewels....Okay, so what’s this picture?Ken Meyercord: I believe that’s the so-called gas chamber at Dachau, which was never used. It looks like a shower room to me, a real-life shower room. In fact, I should have checked. I think this is during the war. It’s repatriated Germans taking a shower. I’m sure you know about this, the congressional delegation that visited Dachau two days after its liberation, and they claimed this room was a gas chamber. They talked about a room 10 foot high and with fake shower heads. Nobody claims there was a gas chamber at Dachau anymore.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, that room sure doesn’t look like a purpose-built gas chamber, that’s for sure. So here’s where the camps were, apparently.Ken Meyercord: The Operation Reinhardt camps, yeah, the only places that it’s claimed there were gas chambers, at least genocidal gas chambers, you know, that scale of gas chambers. There probably were some experimental ones in Germany proper. Hell, we were probably experimenting with them. We don’t know what diabolical things we were coming up with during the war, of course. But anyway, so these are the Operation Reinhardt camps that when the Germans decided at the Wansi Conference in 1942 that they would cleanse Germany of its Jews, they were going to send them to territory that, this is 1942, the Blitzkrieg is marching towards Moscow, and so they were going to end them. The Russian people were fleeing their villages, heading east as the Germans advanced. And so there was a lot of empty villages in what had been part of Russia. So the Germans decided to move the Jews there and settle them in these empty houses in the occupied territories. And these are the camps that they sent the people to, and supposedly the Holocaust believers call the Operation Reinhardt death camps. I and others of my ilk say they were transit camps. This is where the Jews first were sent to and to get their hair cut and their clothes disinfected and whatnot, and decided where they would settle in Eastern Poland. But by the time the Germans had just started that process when they were defeated at Stalingrad and were now in retreat back to Germany, so that plan did not work out. But the believers say that one and a half million Jews were exterminated in gas chambers in these six camps.Kevin Barrett: That’s, yeah, quite a discrepancy of narratives there. So here’s the Dachau prisoners upon liberation.Ken Meyercord: Notice all the kids. I thought they were gassed immediately as useless eaters, as Henry Kissinger would call them.Kevin Barrett: Right, right.Ken Meyercord: They look pretty healthy, don’t they?Kevin Barrett: The official narrative would be that these were labor camps as well as death camps, and that the people who were unfit for labor were the first to be gassed. But I’d say these children probably were not the most productive laborers, and they appear to have survived in reasonably good shape.Ken Meyercord: Yeah. Well, here’s an interesting…is that interior of a gas chamber here? No, this is interior of a disinfection chamber.Kevin Barrett: Ah, okay.Ken Meyercord: In Auschwitz, the blue splotches come from the use of Zyklon B. It stains the walls. Well, this is a disinfection chamber, so it’s not surprising that it’s got these blue stains. But I think we have a picture of what they call a gas chamber at Auschwitz. I don’t know whether I included that for you, but there’s no blue stain. In fact, there’s more blue stain in the hospital at Auschwitz The gas chamber was used by the Germans as a bomb shelter, what later was declared to be a gas chamber. After the war, they knocked down some walls and did this and that to try and make it look like a gas chamber. But that’s where David Irving got in trouble. He claimed, you know, the British… do we need to tell people who David Irving is?Kevin Barrett: Well, yeah, David Irving, of course, is a very famous British historian who was given a lot of accolades, but at some point he apparently went a little too far in his unwillingness to endorse this Holocaust gas chambers narrative, among other things.Ken Meyercord: Let me sort of add to that a little bit. He was renowned for his book, Hitler’s War, which claimed that Hitler didn’t know the Holocaust was taking place.Kevin Barrett: Wait a minute. I don’t think he specifically states that in that book. I read that book, and as I recall, he just avoids the subject. He doesn’t specifically say that Hitler didn’t know about it, does he?Ken Meyercord: He doesn’t mention it there. But then later, somebody discovered Hitler’s diaries. And it was a big deal, obviously. And what’s his name? Trevor Roper, noted British World War II historian, claimed the diaries were real. As Irving pointed out, that proved that the diaries were fake. So, you know, accolades, accolades, accolades. And he learned about the gas chamber at Auschwitz because he went to Canada to attend the Zundel trial. Zundel was a publisher in Canada who got in trouble for publishing a book called Did Six Million Really Die? And Irving went to that thing and he heard all this stuff about the gas chamber being fake and he thought, wow, that’s news. I’m going to go back to Britain and tell people this and they’ll be patting me on the shoulder… He didn’t get that result. He pissed off the Holocaust believers, and they’re quite powerful people. And so he became a non-entity. Goodbye, David Irving.Kevin Barrett: No, he actually was sentenced to prison in Austria, right?Ken Meyercord: Well, later, yes.Kevin Barrett: And then they sued him, and Deborah Lipstadt brought all these lawyers in to sue him, and they basically hounded him quite unmercifully.Ken Meyercord: Oh, yeah. I didn’t realize until I did my little movie that he published 30 books.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, he’s a very serious historian. But again, I’ve only read Hitler’s War.Ken Meyercord: Until he went to that fake gas chamber story, he was a hero, you know, well-respected.Kevin Barrett: what’s this? I don’t recall this picture.Ken Meyercord: Oh, that’s from Serbia. You can see the barbed wire there and the refugees on the free side of the barbed wire. And this is just a World War II photo of, you know, after we liberated Dachau. And supposedly, I don’t know what they presented that as, you know, if it was supposed to be a gas chamber for humans, we’re told, oh, the Germans called it a shower room. This doesn’t look much like the door of the label on a shower room, does it?Kevin Barrett: Yeah, that’s true. That wouldn’t be good for convincing the people going in there that they were only going to get a shower. But yeah, apparently those were the de-lousing chambers that we saw here that now have these blue stains, these Prussian blue cyanide stains, which show...Ken Meyercord: But those might not be the same ones, but the same deal.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, the same kind of thing, yeah.Ken Meyercord: Yeah, that’s in Dachau with the soldier, and the other one’s in Auschwitz.Kevin Barrett: So yeah, here’s the gassing that went on, right?Ken Meyercord: Yeah. Well, I don’t know... I assume this is, I don’t know who’s getting gassed here, but one of the interesting things is that the Germans didn’t know about DDT, which was invented. They actually invented it, I think, but we had it and they didn’t. So there was a lot of, and this gets me to those piles of bodies in the concentration camps. It hadn’t occurred to me how they died. I never gave you that much thought, but it’s obvious that they died of typhus, starvation, exposure. Some of them were shot, probably. Prisons are not the nicest places in the world. So when Eisenhower, we got a picture here somewhere, so Eisenhower examined or investigated one of the first camps liberated by Americans. All those camps in Poland were liberated by the Soviets. So we only have their side of the story about those camps. And they took the archives home, I mean the documents home with them, and still have not released them to the public. So who knows what’s in it. The German documents. Anyway, so there’s a little movie of Eisenhower visiting this camp, Ordorf, which didn’t have many dead bodies. There’s a little pile of, I don’t know if I got it here, you know, 30 bodies or something. And if Eisenhower had any, I don’t know, if he didn’t live in a total bubble, he knew how those people died. They died from Allied bombing, not directly, but by just destroying the entire German infrastructure for feeding people. You know, the folks in the concentration camps were not at the top of the list to be fed, no doubt. Yeah, we’ll get to this one. So they were dying of starvation. Heisenhower knew that, but he just presented this stuff as German atrocities, the dead bodies. That’s the first thing people mention to me when I try and make my case. In my movie, I suggested I had a photo of three Germans at Nuremberg in the dock. And I substituted Stalin, Eisenhower, and Churchill’s faces for the Germans and suggested that maybe they were the ones that should have been prosecuted at Nuremberg. That’s not going to make me any friends in this country, is it?Kevin Barrett: Right. Well, it’s interesting how the war propaganda kept going after the war. I mean, sometimes war propaganda ends when the war ends, like with World War I, all the stuff about the Belgian babies bayoneted by the Germans kind of dropped off. But this time, World War II, no, they just kept on propagandizing.Ken Meyercord: Well, interestingly, after World War I, the German people, with a million or two million Brits dead, that war was just... Just terrible, the First World War. I don’t know the real story, but I would like to think that the German people, the British people, realized they’d been told a bunch of b******t with the Belgian babies on German bayonets. They had a commission to study these atrocity stories, and they admitted that a lot of them were atrocities. I don’t know that anybody was punished for spreading this crap. But at least they recognized that they’d been lied to. With the Holocaust story, not too many people have figured that out.Kevin Barrett: The American people in particular, between the two World Wars, had turned very strongly against World War I based on their accurate memory. The narrative of World War I just was not good enough for them to think that it had been worthwhile. So that’s one of the reasons it was so hard to mobilize the United States for World War II. And that’s why it required things like the Pearl Harbor deception, the deliberate orchestration of the Japanese surprise attack, et cetera.Ken Meyercord: Yeah. As you mentioned, after the war, the Holocaust propaganda continued. But, interestingly, in a sense it didn’t. Like I say Churchill, DeGaulle and Eisenhower didn’t mention it in their books. Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard professor, an avid Zionist, claims that growing up in Brooklyn in the 1950s, he never heard the Holocaust mentioned. Norman Poderhortz, the longtime editor of Commentary, a leading Jewish political magazine, once, in the 1950s, listed the 10 biggest influences on his life. He didn’t mention the Holocaust. Because nobody was talking about it. Churchill and Eisenhower, they knew it was wartime propaganda. They didn’t want people looking into this. So for 10 years, nobody knew about it. Jews didn’t even talk about it. You remember the movie Rush to Judgment with Horst somebody, a German guy who was a very popular actor at that time. It must have come out about 1961. And that really, to me, from my own experience, was the start of it, even though there had been a couple of movies much more obscure, not made by Hollywood, that had addressed the subject. And then the Six-Day War in 1967 was when real attention to the Holocaust started. Because someone had to justify what those Jews were doing in Palestine, and what this war was all about. People didn’t pay much attention to Palestine. But I think the powers that be said, hey, we’ve got to justify what Israel is doing. Let’s talk about the horrors of “the Holocaust.” And we got all sorts of phony books and TV shows and Hollywood movies. Oh, my God. How many has Spielberg made?Kevin Barrett: And they’re still coming at us. Ken Meyercord: Well, this is Eisenhower in Orndorf. This guy on the table is showing them how they were tortured in that camp. And the guy pulling on them is obviously in a camp uniform. The great thing about this picture is the next day, this guy was found dead because he was Capo, one of the Jews that worked for the Germans. So the inmates killed him the night after he’d been hobnobbing with General Eisenhower.Kevin Barrett: I didn’t know that. Interesting.Ken Meyercord: Here he is again. The guy next to Eisenhower, on the left of Eisenhower is... The same guy. I’m not sure these are even the dead bodies. There’s a picture of Eisenhower walking by a little pile of bodies. I don’t know, they may have staged this scene.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, it definitely doesn’t look like part of a pile of six million bodies, that’s for sure. So…This is the gas chamber here, right?Ken Meyercord: This is at Majdanic, which is one of the six Operation Reinhardt camps, and it was the only one that was intact after the war. There were supposedly two gas chambers in Auschwitz, the fake one, and then another one that was just a pile of rubble. But this one was intact. And so they claimed that this was a gas chamber. There’s another shot. This is supposedly the gas chamber, with windows.Kevin Barrett: Right. You can open the window to get a little fresh air, I guess, while you’re being gassed.Ken Meyercord: Oh, don’t open it. Break it open and crawl out immediately! Anyway, the irony is they claimed the... Survivors have all sorts of weird stories as to how the Germans killed the Jews: creating a vacuum, putting them in a room like this and creating a vacuum. Some guy claimed that they had the inmates defecate on the heads of other inmates in a hole in a grave to kill them. But here in Majdanic, it wasn’t Zyklon B, it was supposedly carbon monoxide, the stuff that comes out of your car exhaust. They’ve got two gas tanks attached to the wall. But the gas tanks are clearly marked CO2, not CO whatever carbon monoxide is.Kevin Barrett: CO1.Ken Meyercord: They couldn’t find any carbon monoxide tanks, so they replaced it with harmless CO2 tanks. I mean, it’s unbelievable. I hate to laugh about it. It is a tragedy. It was a tragedy. Of course, 50 to 60 million other people who died in the war are a tragedy, which we don’t generally hear much about, except soldiers. Anyway, that’s typical. It’s a tragicomedy in a big way.Kevin Barrett: It’s really kind of mind-boggling that this war propaganda has taken on a life of its own the way it has, to the point that now you can’t even talk about these things in many European countries without risking going to prison.Ken Meyercord: Yeah. Have you got Germar’s photo there, did I give you that?Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I did, but I’ve had Germar on the show before, so I left that out of the slideshow. This is the last picture we have on your slideshow. So…six million people are supposedly, what, gassed, cremated, dug up, burned again. Ken Meyercord: Supposedly, according to survivor testimony, they were buried, they were gassed, then they were buried in these huge pits. Dirt poured over it, and as the Germans retreated, they were “so worried about being charged with war crimes.” I think that they probably knew they were going to be charged with war crimes. And so they dug these open, opened these pits, took all the bodies, and we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of them, and burned them on things like we saw in the Dresden cremation, and then filled the pits back in to hide all the evidence of the Holocaust that had taken place in that camp. So people have looked for these huge pits that didn’t have any bodies anymore because they’d all been cremated. And that’s what’s happening here. This is a British anthropologist. And they got down to about four feet and the guy there says, “oh, look at this. Look at what we found, a shark’s tooth.” No human bodies, no remains of human bodies, nothing. But that was presented as proof of the Holocaust at Treblinka. But those pits, which are bigger than an Olympic swimming pool, supposedly, to hold all those bodies, have never been found. And today, with our technology, we can do seismic waves into the dirt and see whether the dirt has been disturbed. If they dug these pits and then took the bodies out, then filled them in with dirt, the top layer wouldn’t look like a foot of soil. That would have been destroyed. And a seismic study could prove that. And they’ve done some halfway searches like that, but never found any pits. So if there weren’t any pits, were there any bodies?Kevin Barrett: Yeah, it’s kind of astounding that given all of the attention, all the money, and the splash that could be made if they actually found huge pits full of remains of Holocaust victims, they’ve never found it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but sometimes it’s very suggestive of evidence of absence. Well, Ken, thank you. We’re pretty much at the end of the slideshow.Ken Meyercord: Okay, just one last sentence: They use that story of the burning, digging the bodies up and burning them. And that’s why there’s no evidence. Even at Bobba Yar, which I didn’t know much about, they didn’t find any bodies. That’s supposed to be 30,000 people killed in a pit. And there’s nothing there.Kevin Barrett: Okay. Well, remind us the name of your film and how people can see it.Ken Meyercord: Well, how they can see it is a problem. The film is so-called Holocaust Denial, and as you know, I’ve started submitting it to film festivals. I happened to go to Sundance this last winter, and that sort of got me involved in that. So I’m sending it. Unfortunately, I didn’t bother to put it out on YouTube because I know it would be deleted.Kevin Barrett: How about Rumble? I’ll post it on my Rumble account for you if you want.Ken Meyercord: That’d be great. Okay, let’s do it. I am a Neanderthal. Kevin Barrett: I’ll figure out how to get it posted.Ken Meyercord: That would be great.Kevin Barrett: Great. So we’ll get it. You have to, you know, we’ll get it downloaded, uploaded. We’ll get that thing on Rumble. Well, thank you, Ken Meyercord. I appreciate your dedication to the truth to the point of taking these kinds of risks to reputation, all of that you have to take to even talk about this stuff.Ken Meyercord: Great to see you again. Yeah, you too.Kevin Barrett: God bless. Keep up the good work.Ken Meyercord: See you next time.Kevin Barrett: Bye. Bye-bye. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Video from Press TV Telegram Channel See also: Rumble link Bitchute link TruthJihad link It’s increasingly obvious that Donald Trump, who had severe psychological issues to begin with, is not getting any less crazy as he degenerates into senility. Putting a madman in charge, at the precise moment when the empire is about to be overtaken by its rivals, is either a bold stroke of genius, or the stupidest move ever…and I’m pretty sure I know which alternative is correct.Coincidentally, shortly after I gave this interview, Hua Bin posted “The ‘Mad King’ of the West.” In it he notes: “When a king’s erratic behavior crosses the line from a nuisance to an existential threat to the state’s survival, the ruling elite, the military, or the king’s own family sometimes step in to permanently remove him.” My comment:What to do with Mad King Trump?Gemini: “In Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of the carnivalesque, the ending of carnival requires the symbolic execution, dethroning, or banishment of the mock king or ‘Lord of Misrule.’”I propose that Elon build a very silly looking rocket and launchpad on the White House lawn. Trump, wearing a fool’s cap, is strapped to the nosecone. The rocket is launched, with great fanfare, carrying the soon-to-be-asphyxiated Mad King as far away from Earth as possible.This ritual, livestreamed worldwide to an audience of billions, would symbolize not just the end of Trump’s misrule, but also that of the Mad Empire for which he fronts.If you have a better idea, be sure to post it in the comments below.-KBTranscript:It's the old definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And Trump is nothing if not insane, as well as a senile, certified narcissist. His psychiatric diagnosis actually would probably take up pretty much your whole program. What makes this even crazier, from the American perspective, is that signing this MOU, which was essentially an American surrender, got all kinds of political pushback. So it looks like the administration or the powers that be behind it are having sort of buyer’s remorse about their MOU. Now they’re going back into the same losing posture that they were in before they signed it—which was the whole reason they signed it in the first place! This kind of flailing around to no strategic point is typical behavior of Western governments, and in particular the Trump Administration, these days. But I think this is really an extreme case of just completely clueless strategic planning and decision-making. There's never been a case in history where bombing a country, bombing its civilians in particular, actually convinced the civilians to sue for peace. It's always been the exact opposite. And we saw this with World War II. Notoriously, the horrific fire bombings of German cities and the horrific nuclear bombings actually were not what forced that surrender. In other words, the historians are agreed that you cannot convince anybody to overthrow their government and sue for peace by bombing civilian targets. It just angers the civilians. And makes them work that much harder on behalf of resisting. And that’s anybody. That works with all countries. But in the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran, we have the absolute last country on Earth that anybody should imagine that they can coerce by deliberately targeting their civilians by bombing water plants and power plants and bridges and things like that. The people of Iran are majority Shia Muslim who have internalized that interpretation of Islam's commandment of justice to say that the big example here was the martyrdom of Imam Hussein. And a big mistake was made then, when people didn't stand up for him, and we're not going to make that mistake again. And so martyring the leadership, martyring the schoolgirls of Minab, and then threatening to harm the civilians of Iran is not going to convince the people of Iran to back off or to become cowards. It’s the opposite. The more that Trump acts like a crazed, out-of-control bully, the more fierce the resistance and the stronger the resistance is. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

In an interview with Newsmax last night, US president Donald Trump seemingly endorsed the conspiracy theory that Lindsey Graham was killed when “a certain part of his body” exploded due to contact with a booby-trapped LEGO child android.Trump, alerted to the danger, will presumably guard his “certain body part” against potential attacks by Laura Loomer LEGO androids.Loomer (the real one, not the exploding LEGO replica) has been blaming Russia rather than Iran for causing Graham’s “certain body part” to explode. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News linkBreaking! Iranian mullahs killed Lindsey Graham! Read all about it! We now return to our regular programming. -Ed.Americans who have heard of Sun Tzu identify him with deception, like they identify Machievelli with immorality. The US leadership class has taken to heart the Chinese sage’s dictum “All warfare is based on deception.” They have weaponized their self-granted license to lie against their own people, feeding us outrageous whoppers about Iran being supposedly primitive, fanatical, and full of people who hate their own government and can’t wait to overthrow it and welcome invading Americans and Israelis with proverbial flowers and candy. Iranians, we are told, are royalists who want the US puppet Shah back on his Peacock Throne. They are also Pol Pot style communists who would love to be governed by the US-backed MEK terror cult. Not only that, but they probably also yearn to be ruled by an army of invading Zionist Kurds. Anything so the girls can go half-naked again like they did before 1979.At some point American leaders started believing their own propaganda. High on their own supply, they have been making an endless succession of strategic blunders.Iran, for its part, prioritizes another of Sun Tzu’s observations: "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." Extending the Socratic imperative to know thyself to the enemy provides a sound basis for truth-based strategic communication. And sometimes the simple truth can defeat an army of lies.Iranians live there, so they know what is really happening in their country. They are also heavily exposed to Western media, including its massive Farsi language propaganda apparatus, so they’ve heard both sides of the story. They can’t possibly miss the grotesque levels of deception and self-deception that pervade Western discourse about Iran.Just as the October 7 concentration camp breakout unveiled the truth about the ongoing genocide of Palestine, the current Israeli-American war on Iran has cut through legions of Western/Zionist lies to reveal stark geopolitical realities. First and most obviously, the Islamic Republic commands immense popular support. As with Bush’s war on Iraq only more so, the “flowers and candy” predictions were preposterous.Actually that comparison is deceptive. Saddam Hussein never enjoyed much popular legitimacy. Most Iraqis tolerated him, and preferred him to a Zionist-orchestrated US invasion, but certainly did not love him. (What was there to love?) By contrast, the late Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was genuinely loved by his people. Even the disaffected, including the small minority of Iranians who would prefer to live under a secular system, for the most part loved the Rehbar. When he was criticized, it was almost always because he was seen as being too kind and gentle and lenient and forgiving…in other words, lovable…but sometimes not harsh enough on corrupt individuals and enemies. Iranians, including the minority of disaffected ones, always knew that the Khamenei family was squeaky-clean. The late Rehbar insisted on that. Since everyone knew that he and his family were totally free from any whiff of corruption, the propaganda lies to the contrary spread by US-taxpayer-funded Persian language media simply discredited the source. “Know yourself and your enemy” triumphed over “deception.”Likewise, Western propaganda claims that the Rehbar was a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein were belied by the experience of ordinary Iranians who could see with their own eyes what was going on in their country. For example, during one of my eight visits to Iran I spoke to someone whose friend was involved in a land dispute. Though clearly in the right, and after years of court cases having finally obtained the Supreme Leader’s official decision to that effect, the plaintiff was still unable to take possession of his property, because lower-level officials were in no hurry to enforce the Leader’s edict. Far from enjoying dictatorial powers, the Leader’s authority was mostly moral and motivational, and stemmed more from love than from fear. That approach had drawbacks as well as advantages, but the latter outweighed the former, and the ultimate triumph of the loving approach to governance was eternalized by his martyrdom and the reaction it sparked.Iranians’ love for their martyred Leader was demonstrated at last week’s funeral commemorations, in which an estimated 43 million Iranians participated. That’s almost half of Iran’s total population, making it the equivalent of 150 million Americans turning out for a leader’s funeral. (That’s about how many Americans would line up at Trump’s grave to piss on it; he’d be lucky to get one-thousandth of that to pay their respects.)The Leader’s funeral was not just the biggest funeral in human history, but also the most-attended event in history. Ex-CNN host Rick Sanchez, fired from the MSM plantation for noticing who the owners and overseers were, had this to say:Video linkMore than 12 million people turned out for Ali Khamenei's (Tehran) funeral — one of the largest funeral processions in modern history... and it's still not over.That's more than Lenin's funeral. More than JFK's. More than Churchill's. More than Queen Elizabeth's. More than any British monarch's funeral.So much for the "Iran is on the brink of regime change" narrative.When you’re high on your own lie supply, trapped inside your self-inflated bubble of masturbatory fantasy, you can be blind to the most blindingly obvious realities…such as the obvious fact that murdering Iran’s Supreme Leader would lead to Iran’s shutting down, and seizing permanent control over, the Strait of Hormuz, where 20% of the world’s energy must pass. Sun Tzu’s claim that deception wins wars was never meant as a recipe for random, outrageous, pointless lying that deceives the liar not the target and blows up in the liar’s face. If Sun Tzu heard people like Karl Rove chortling “we’re an empire now, we create our own reality” as their pathological mendacity triggers ever-bigger explosive chain reactions, he would certainly want to distance himself from such grotesque distortions of his own prescriptions for the modest and judicious use of strategic deceptions.Iran, a lynchpin of the reality-based community, knows that geographical reality has favored it with mountains for self defense and a dominant position overlooking the world’s most important Strait. Military reality, too, now favors the side that keeps its drones and rockets deep underground. These realities cannot be overcome by any number of lying Trump tweets brandishing fantastic and obscene threats. Trump’s crazed imagination, which swings wildly between fantasies of nuking Iran one day and equally improbable fantasies of peace the next, may hold temporary power over the stock market, but it can’t determine the outcome of the military conflict. Trump may be able to bend FIFA’s soccer rules, but such demented moves, like his erratic war tweets, just make him look weak, stupid, desperate, and totally out of control. As a war propagandist, Trump is an epic failure: His war on Iran is the most unpopular war ever begun, and it plumbs new depths of unpopularity every time a new poll is taken. When economic crunch time comes, Trump will be lucky to escape the guillotine. Iranian strategic communicators, like Trump, can be quite imaginative. But they are honest enough to frame their Lego videos as fiction. My literary journalism professor Wilmot Ragsdale was fond of quoting Camus’s “fiction is the lie through which we tell the truth.” That’s what Iranian LEGO filmmakers excel at. Iranian communicators enjoy a huge advantage over Trump’s Fox News crew: they are defending the defensible, and the defensive. Nobody likes aggression, least of all God. And the Iranian advantage goes even deeper: They are metaphysically grounded in Truth a.k.a. Reality (al-Haqq, one of the 99 Most Beautiful Names of God). The late Supreme Leader, like other leading Iranian philosophers, was never undone by Westoxified deviations of hyper-skeptical materialism and nihilism. There is essentially no Western philosophy left, because the West has abandoned God, and with Him, Reality. Trying to fight an information war on groundless ground is a hopeless assignment. Might as well sink into the quicksand and be done with it.So it’s a war of truth versus lies, reality versus fantasy. Lies may prevail for a time. But, like evil, they are ultimately undone by their lack of metaphysical grounding and ontological heft.“Know your enemy and yourself”—and the truth—defeats (self-)deception in the end.Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link Telegram Short VideoOver 40 million Iranians came out for the funeral of their martyred Leader. Meanwhile, the cowardly narcissist murderer Trump is literally as well as figuratively defecating himself, whimpering fearfully as Israel feeds him stories about Iranians wanting to kill him. Well, guess what: they do! They want revenge for the 160 schoolgirls of Minab as well as the other murders. But the Iranian people aren’t alone. The whole world, and a likely plurality of Americans, would wildly celebrate should anything untoward happen to Trump. Iran, in stark contrast, stands courageously united behind its Islamic Republican leadership.This interview was broadcast live around 9:30 pm Tehran time Friday, July 10.Transcript:Marzieh Hashemi (Anchor): Thanks so much for staying with us right here at Press TV. Of course, throughout this week we have been covering the various processions of the martyred leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei, from Tehran, then to Qom, and to Iraq to Najaf and Karbala, and of course yesterday to Mashhad. By this morning, we can say that it took time for millions and millions of people to turn out. We are looking at over 15 million, and some reports say over 43 million people participated in this funeral across both countries. It is an unbelievable event and a transforming situation taking place in the region.I’d like to welcome my guests to this part of the program: joining us from Morocco is Kevin Barrett, editor of Veterans Today, and here in the studio with me is my colleague, Maryam. Thanks to both of you for being with me. I’ll start us off with Kevin. What are your overarching thoughts about the number of people that turned out for the various processions? What type of message does it send, considering this is the man that the U.S. said did not have any support and was a dictator?Kevin Barrett: Yes, this was the biggest funeral in human history and one of the very biggest gatherings of people. It sent a very, very powerful message. It completely annihilated and obliterated the Western propaganda that has been going on for years, claiming that the leadership in Iran in general, and the late martyred Supreme Leader in particular, didn’t have any support. People now can see for themselves that there has really been no political leadership in history that has had this kind of backing.When someone like Trump—whose poll numbers are ridiculously low and falling all the time as he blunders into another forever war—sees this, it triggers intense cognitive dissonance. This was the most obviously immoral as well as strategically stupid war in American history, which is saying a lot. Then Trump himself, and the Americans, see this kind of turnout and think, “Wait a minute, I thought he didn’t have any support. I thought nobody liked him.”There’s just this huge cognitive dissonance that’s slapping awake everybody in the West who has been subjected to all of this propaganda over the years and decades. It’s very inspiring as well because there’s a spiritual dimension to this principled resistance—a resistance to aggression, to imperialism, and to genocide.Marzieh Hashemi: The message overall that was sent, as Kevin ended his thoughts, is a sign of resistance to imperialism. I’m going to talk about that aspect because we know even inside of Iraq, the United States has continually tried to manipulate Iraqi politics to make sure that it’s more aggressive towards Iran, or anti-Iran. Despite all of what they have been trying to do, we saw millions and millions of people turning out throughout the country, especially in the cities of Karbala and Najaf. Maryam, what are your thoughts about that and the message overall that this sends?Maryam Azarchehr: Despite everything the U.S. has tried, the numbers are reported to be 43 million and higher, and that’s not even taking into consideration everybody else who held a symbolic funeral. We know that in addition to the funeral processions that involved the martyred bodies of our leader and his family members, there were symbolic processions elsewhere because it couldn’t be arranged for the leader’s body to go to those places as well.We had various funeral processions in the Beqaa Valley where a lot of people showed up for the martyred leader, and this was immediately after his martyrdom. If you take that into consideration, along with gatherings in Pakistan, and even in Germany where a few hundred turned out—and we know how the fascist regimes of those countries operate, seeing how they beat up protesters when they were protesting against the genocide in Gaza—the numbers are even greater than what we know.By itself, this seems to be not only the biggest funeral procession in history, but also perhaps the biggest human gathering in history. That’s really something, especially as you and our guest mentioned, since the whole propaganda narrative has been that this guy does not have supporters. The whole excuse the U.S. constantly uses for interfering in the politics of different countries, and for overthrowing democratically elected leaders, is that they don’t have democracy and the people are under pressure.This turnout very much exposes the lie that has been spread about Iran, about our martyred leader Khamenei, and about the position of leadership. Every one of those individuals who participated clearly accepted and cared for Imam Khamenei himself, coming out to those massive processions in extremely high temperatures up to 100 degrees. In Europe, people die in much lower temperatures. Everyone who participated demonstrated that they have accepted the position of leadership and the jurisprudence of an Islamic scholar.The U.S. has said for a very long time that the Islamic Republic is not legitimate. Of course, they know that we have presidential elections, a parliament, and that people vote in all kinds of elections in this country and actually have a lot of say. What they try to use to criticize Iran is the claim that the leadership is in place for a long time—unless, of course, there’s mismanagement or Islamic misconduct on the side of the leader, which was not the case.With what actually happened during those massive rallies in support of the leader of the Islamic Revolution, it was very much a referendum for the Islamic Republic of Iran, proving its legitimacy once again. The same Islamic Republic that had come to power by the vote of about 98% of Iranians demonstrated, after the martyrdom of Sayyid Ali Khamenei, that millions are still supporting the leadership. That is major, and in many ways, it shows the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic.Marzieh Hashemi: That’s a very interesting point to make because we know the enemies of the Islamic Republic continually say it’s time for another referendum to be held. As Maryam said, these indeed were the biggest referendums that could have ever been held.Now back to you, Kevin. I see the Palestinian flag behind you and I want to touch on that. When we talk about the failing narrative that’s taking place, we go back to October of 2023, the beginning of this latest round of genocide in Gaza and the Palestinian territories in general. We see the continued support that the Islamic Republic of Iran has shown and given to the Palestinians, which continued right up until last night with this burial, once again breaking the narrative. Do you think that the world will ever go back to pre-October 7, 2023, in terms of not understanding who the main culprits of these massacres are?Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I think you’re onto something, Marwa. And I think you’re right that the October 7th, 2023 raid—the brilliant Al-Aqsa Storm, the Tufan Al-Aqsa raid by the coalition of Palestinian resistance groups—really changed history. I think they were courageous and willing to endure the suffering and martyrdom that came because they saw that this was the only way to create a situation in which the Zionist entity would take off its mask and reveal its true genocidal nature, stripping it of all legitimacy.For those of us who’ve been paying attention, we all knew that it didn’t have any legitimacy before that and that it was indeed committing genocide from the very first massacres. There were terrorist massacres even decades before the Nakba of 1948. The world really was hypnotized and put to sleep by the propaganda apparatus throughout all those decades, and it was awakened by the Al-Aqsa Storm operation.Of course, the narrative battle about that operation is still going on. The propaganda media keeps trying to tell us about terrible Hamas and resistance atrocities, whereas people who seek the truth discover that wasn’t the case. The resistance was very principled, targeting the Israeli military and taking civilian hostages as a fallback measure. These propaganda stories of atrocities are lies; in fact, it was the Israeli defense forces that massacred the vast majority of civilians.Look at the story of what happened to those kibbutzes. Everyone inside was killed, and all the cars at the music festival were flattened by helicopter gunships. Hamas didn’t have those kinds of weapons. Everybody interested in the truth has started to get that information now that it’s available. Even people who aren’t seeing that level of truth about October 7th are seeing that this is a brutal genocide. Tens of thousands of children have been deliberately murdered. As we saw in a headline by CNN just last week, “Israel is deliberately killing children in a genocide, says UN.” That was the headline on CNN.When it reaches that point, the world is forced to see what’s really going on. It’s been readjusted back towards a real, honest understanding of what’s happening in Occupied Palestine. The world changed that day, and it’s not going back anytime soon. The Islamic Republic of Iran is harvesting tremendous legitimacy based on its principled opposition to genocide.Marzieh Hashemi:: Indeed. With what Kevin just said about the Islamic Republic, we want to look at that aspect. When we talk about the issue of Palestine, we know its importance dates back to the very initiation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. From a political perspective, we have seen how the leader of the revolution continued to support the Palestinian cause and resistance to oppression in general, prioritizing it at a time when many inside the country and elsewhere would have thought other things should take priority. I want to talk about who he was from a strategic perspective and how effective his decisions were.Maryam Azarchehr: Standing with the oppressed, especially our Muslim brothers and sisters, is part of the very fabric of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Without that, in many ways, the Islamic Republic would cease to exist because that ideology is our core identity. The people who seek justice and truth support us because of that ideology. It’s not as though we’re a hegemonic power; we have a fraction of the military budget of the U.S.Very soon after the victory of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, immediately separated our path from the Israeli regime. Under the Western-backed puppet regime of the Shah, Iran was actually the second Muslim-majority country to recognize the Israeli occupation as a country. Imagine how different it was when Iran shut down the Israeli embassy and gave that embassy to Palestine. At a time when Iran was an up-and-coming new revolution, it was very difficult. Even then, Imam Khomeini didn’t suggest bypassing difficult issues to slowly build up. Islamically, standing against oppression is the exact identity with which the Islamic Republic gained victory and amassed support.Islamically, we are not permitted to see the oppression of Muslim brothers and sisters and do absolutely nothing about it—let alone act like the Persian Gulf regimes that support the Zionist regime. We are not allowed to hear the cry of Muslims for help and do nothing. On the other hand, the Israeli regime could have been characterized in a lot of different ways, but Imam Khomeini called it a cancerous tumor. That was the best way to describe it because he noted that if the Israeli regime is not confined and targeted, it will not suffice with Palestine; it will take over more and more land.Now they are openly talking about the map of “Greater Israel” and saying Lebanon is theirs, while moving to occupy Lebanon, Syria, and other countries. Where they haven’t occupied, they have completely infiltrated the governance. Even in European countries, we have seen crackdowns on people rallying against the genocide in Gaza because of the influence of the Israeli regime.Our ideology is the very reason behind our power and ability to stand for some 50 years against every weapon the U.S. regime—the biggest hegemonic power—has thrown our way, from military aggression to coups, to the most difficult economic warfare. If we did not target the Israeli regime and protect the region, they would come after the whole region, which we see now more clearly than ever before.Marzieh Hashemi: Indeed. Kevin, looking back throughout the decades, we know there has been an extreme demonization of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I want to look at that aspect in the Muslim world and beyond because even many Muslims were quite skeptical of Iran and bought into the propaganda. Do you think that has transitioned, given Iran’s very obvious support of the Palestinian cause and the sacrifices Iran has made? Has that message broken through?Kevin Barrett: Yes, I think that the world has shifted profoundly in a pro-Iran direction in terms of global public opinion in general, and Islamic world public opinion in particular. I can see that not only by following the discussion online but also here in Morocco. Talking with cab drivers, sitting in cafes, watching the World Cup, and chatting, there’s been a real change.I think Moroccans were being successfully brainwashed against the Islamic Republic of Iran, increasingly so, right up until Tufan Al-Aqsa. We started to see a shift that has become profound in the wake of this war. Nobody can deny that this Zionist-American war on Iran, and the murder of Iran’s leaders—including their holy religious leaders—is shocking to everyone. It’s just naked, obvious aggression.It’s clear to everyone that this is being done in great part because Iran is standing against the genocide in Gaza. You can’t miss that, no matter how much your government leans on media outlets to try to temper the discussion and obfuscate. Unfortunately, that happens in many countries, including Arab and Muslim countries, but they can’t hide it. People see right through it. I’ve noticed a huge shift—a huge pro-Iran shift here in Morocco and across the world in the discussions among Sunni Muslim countries, and then beyond into the non-Muslim world as well. Iran is somehow winning this public relations battle despite being outspent by hundreds or thousands to one.Marzieh Hashemi: Now, we have about one minute left. I want to look at the way the Leader chose to stay in his home and office, completely unmoved by the threats. How much of that do you think played a role in working up the masses?Maryam Azarchehr: First of all, let me clarify one point. It is very wise for any leader to protect themselves when they are being targeted in order to be able to continue leading their people. What was different this time was that the leadership, and in fact the whole system, knew that the U.S. was going to bomb everywhere. It wasn’t as though only the leader was being targeted; we saw how they targeted children, schools, and everywhere else.Under these conditions, the Leader essentially said that since they are going to target everyone, he should not benefit from any special security conditions that are inaccessible to the rest of the 90 million population. That was why he chose not to go into hiding, though I believe he was still careful with security.On the other hand, as you mentioned, there has been a lot of propaganda by Israeli-funded or U.S.-funded Farsi-speaking media telling Iranians that their leader is in hiding, or that he escaped to Venezuela or Russia. His choice to stay completely disproved those lies.Marzieh Hashemi: That brings us to the end of this segment. I want to thank my guest in Morocco, Kevin Barrett, and my colleague here in the studio with me, Maryam. Thank you to our viewers for staying with us. I’ll be back in just a few minutes with the news bulletin. Please stay tuned. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkThe largest funeral in human history just took place in Tehran. The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, the martyred Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was mourned during two days of services that were attended by somewhere between 15 million to well over 20 million people.More than 20 million attend funeral prayers for Iran’s martyred leader and his family- Zafar BangashThe previous “world’s largest funeral”* occurred in 1989, when 10.2 million people turned out for the funeral of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the first leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolution and founder of the Islamic Republic.Ayatollah Khamenei’s murderer, US President Donald Trump, who wisely chose not to attend the event, was befuddled:Trump Shocked by Massive Turnout at Martyr Imam Khamenei’s Funeral: “I Thought People Hated Him”Trump apparently believes everything Netanyahu tells him, and is only gradually figuring out that the USA is being manipulated by a psychopathic liar.The funeral procession is now moving to Qom, Najaf, Karbala, and then to Mashhad for the burial.I recorded the video posted above (text below) at the request of an Iranian involved in the event. It was played at the funeral in Tehran yesterday.Funeral crowd video linkVideo transcript:His Eminence, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Allah yarhamu, was a kind, gentle, spiritual man, and a very intelligent man, who will be remembered as the greatest head of state of his time.The martyred Rahbar served as president of the Islamic Republic of Iran during the imposed war of the 1980s, then served as Supreme Leader for 36 years and eight months. He shepherded the Islamic Republic from its youth to its maturity, forging a nation dedicated to standing for justice against injustice, and willing to pay a price for doing so.I was privileged to attend one of the martyred Rahbar’s speeches in Tehran in 2017. I was impressed by his calm dignity and the light that shone from his eyes as he discussed the challenges faced by Iran and the world.I was tangientially involved in his efforts to convince Western young people to take another, deeper look at Islam. I published his letters to the youth of the West in two of my books that were published in 2015 and 2016. In the first letter, he asked:“Why does the power structure in the world want Islamic thought to be marginalized and remain latent? What concepts and values in Islam disturb the programs of the super powers and what interests are safeguarded in the shadow of distorting the image of Islam?”When Netanyahu and Trump martyred Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei along with his daughter, son-in-law, grandchild, and daughter-in-law, as well as the schoolgirls of Minab and so many others, they inadvertently helped promulgate that message. Millions of young people all over the world are now asking: “Why did these unbelievably evil people hate the Supreme Leader of Iran and the religion he represents? Why did the forces of genocide, the forces of Baal, the forces of Jeffrey Epstein, feel so threatened by this man and his religious principles and the country he guided according to those principles?”The Supreme Leader’s martyrdom is awakening millions of young people all over the world and stimulating them to ask the kinds of questions he urges them to ask in his letters.His martyrdom by the bombs of the modern Yazids was his last letter to the world and its youth, and God willing, it will be read and taken to heart.–—*Wiki(Zio)pedia claims some obscure Indian politician once had a bigger funeral, but I doubt anyone actually believes that. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News linkSince I began doing weekly news roundups in 2008 I’ve been striving to bring order, meaning, and raw, brutal honesty to the chaos of ongoing events. Every Sunday morning, while some go to church and others sleep off hangovers, I lounge around my Moroccan villa sipping green tea and writing up Saturday evening’s False Flag Weekly News. This week it wasn’t hard to find a theme.Mainstream media has finally started covering two monumentally gargantuan, insane stories: Trump’s unprecedented mega-corruption, and Israel’s deliberate mass-murder of tens of thousands of children in a certified genocide. Granted, these aren’t exactly breaking news. Sam Kaplan began tracking Trump’s gazillions of dollars worth of scams and crimes in January 2025, while people like Owen Jones have been covering the Gaza genocide since October 2023.If dog-bites-man is no news, while man-bite-dog is news, we can extrapolate that when the news actually covers the news that it normally is being paid not to cover…now THAT is news! As of this week, the genocide of Gazan children is officially a mainstream story, thanks to a UN report, while Trump’s scams are making headlines since he self-reported two billion dollars worth of them. Now even MSM consumers are starting to get a closeup view of the sickest, vilest, most decadent, corrupt, murderous, genocidal, evil regime in the history of the world. And presiding over it all, or at least fronting for it, is Donald J. “drain the swamp, no wars” Trump, the self-proclaimed “best president in the history of Israel,” a senile narcissist pervert and con artist. And now even Fox is reporting on “Trump family: biggest grift of all time.” (But why are they finally reporting this now? Are they pummeling Trump into following Bibi’s orders to re-ignite the war on Iran?)The treasonous billionaires who made Trump “red Caesar” (or was that “red Caligula”) should have invested their money in an AI remake of a vintage John Waters comedy starring Donatella Trumpella alongside Divine and Edith Massey. Here’s a preview: (video link)When Waters made his classic films Pink Flamingos (1972) and Female Trouble (1974) I was a naive high school kid who found them, like Philip Roth’s even more perverted Portnoy’s Complaint, transgressively hilarious. In those days, Jewish perverts and obese transsexual clowns were working the sideshow where they belonged. Today, they’ve taken over the whole circus. Autobiographical asideAt my high school graduation in 1976 I wore a red-white-and-blue “F* THE BICENTENNIAL” T-shirt under my graduation garb, which I removed at a semi-inappropriate moment to display the offensive message. I had a bad case of JFK assassination coup blues and identified with the “angry hippies,” as Waters called them, who were disgusted with both mainstream culture/politics and drug-fueled left-leaning idealism but couldn’t imagine a viable alternative. Still, we tried anyway, and launched punk rock. I spent August 1976 hitchhiking around Cornwall and Wales with side-trips to London, mooching off employed people and reading about the next big countercultural thing, the Sex Pistols, in the underground music press. Post-bicentennial, my alienation just got worse. From the seventies on, until reformed by Islam and marriage in 1993, I inhabited the overlapping fringes of the punk demimonde, second-tier academia, and literary-journalistic bohemia.Had I become a normal upstanding American, maybe I could have helped stop the USA’s decline from its horrible bicentennial of 1976 to its current semiquincentennial nadir. But that’s probably a grandiose, unrealistic fantasy. Decades of “trying to change the system from within” instead of yapping about JFK and 9/11 from the fringes might have led to a life sentence—not just 20 years—of boredom…culminating in acquiescence to the self-serving mediocrity that’s de rigueur in mainstream circles.F* the Bicentennial! Back to This Week’s Semiquincentennial NewsTrump’s 250 year birthday party for the USA didn’t exactly go off without a hitch. Where to begin? Well, there was the iconic American flag paraglider crash. There was Trump’s Great American State Flop on the Capitol Mall, which answered the question: What if Trump gave a Great American State Fair and nobody came? But those calamities were as nothing compared to Congress moving to officially put the US military under Israeli command. Admittedly there are some strong arguments in favor:*If Israel commanded the US military directly, it wouldn’t have to kill US presidents, as it did in 1963.*If Israel commanded the US military directly, it wouldn’t have to suborn US presidents in order to mass murder American servicemen in false flag naval attacks, as it did in 1967.*If Israel commanded the US military directly, it wouldn’t have to blow up skyscrapers in New York killing 3000 people in order to hijack the US military to wage war on Israel’s enemies, as it did in 2001.So we could avoid the tragedies of presidential assassinations, ship sinkings, and skyscraper demolitions simply by turning our military over to Israel lock, stock and barrel. What could go wrong?Maybe a disastrous ground invasion of Iran?And that leads us back to the question “How Much Money Can Trump Scam Before the Oil Runs Out?” The US is caught between the humiliating but least-worst alternative of surrendering to Iran by actually implementing the 14-point Memorandum of Understanding, and the most-worst alternative of sacrificing American lives in a pointless and doomed ground invasion. Everyone except Israel prefers the least-worst.Heretofore, the Trump regime has been wavering between “peace is at hand” announcements, 39 of them at last count, interspersed with roughly the same number of bloodcurdling threats. Every time Trump yells “peace” oil prices dive and markets stabilize. Every time he yells “war” the opposite occurs. This situation has created a gold mine for insider traders, including Trump’s own family (by Trump’s own admission!) So as long as Trump can keep the Iran situation wavering back and forth between not-quite-war but also not-quite-peace, his crime family can rake in billions.But all good things come to an end. Once oil hits tank bottom, and the global economy seizes up and melts down, the quintessentially Trumpian brand of market-manipulation consisting of screaming “peace” on Monday mornings and “war” on Friday evenings will be no longer viable. So the trillion dollar question is: When does the oil run out? Best available estimates suggest that crunch time will arrive during the next three to eight weeks. Based on those estimates, if I were licensed to give investment advice, which I am not, I would say: “Buy oil!” Futures, I mean. Oil prices are currently in the neighborhood of prewar levels, and it seems unlikely that they will not be significantly higher, possibly a lot higher, maybe even catastrophically higher, by this fall or, at the latest, early winter.But how will it play out politically? Fully surrendering to Iran and fully restoring Homuz traffic may be the least-worst option, but it still might be too-little-too-late to save the economy from shocks that will crater the Republicans in November. That could put Trump and his crime family on the fast track to prison.Not surrendering—i.e. not muzzling the Israeli mad dog—will just make the economic crunch, and Trump Inc.’s political crunch, that much worse. So the Administration can choose: It can surrender, take a hopefully modest economic and political hit, and possibly survive. Or it can embrace a full-scale catastrophe that will impact US allies in Europe and Asia the worst, while obeying Israel’s orders to plunge into a catastrophic ground war. A massive, losing war with plenty of American casualties, coupled with a global economic meltdown, sounds like a recipe for political disaster. The Trump regime is presumably trying to postpone any such disaster until after the November elections. That sounds like what JD Vance recently implied by saying the US wasn’t really surrendering to Iran but was instead “just buying time” (until the war starts again). Martin Jay, fellow Morocco-based journalist, recently expressed his suspicions that the Trump regime’s apparent break with Bibi is just for show, and that the war will resume when winter weather enables a ground invasion.The Iranian leadership isn’t falling for it. They are tightening the screws to ensure that Trump will face economic disaster in advance of the November elections…unless he actually muzzles Israel and releases a substantial chunk of Iran’s stolen money.So on the occasion of America’s ill-starred Semiquincentennial, the grotesquely corrupt, increasingly authoritarian Trump Clown Regime is impaled on a Morton’s fork. The only options—surrender to Iran (bye-bye Hormuz, petrodollar, and Israel) or surrender to Israel (disastrous mega-war and New Great Depression)—are both, from the US imperial perspective, almost unimaginably terrible…though some might argue that the loss of the Israeli albatross around America’s neck would be not just a silver lining, but, for those with eyes to see, the all-time greatest American victory, the salvific triumph we have all been waiting for. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkIs material progress an illusion? Is the modern world a sham? And is AI exponentially intensifying the ersatz nature of modernity? Paul Cudenec, a notable voice of the freedom movement during the COVID lockdowns, discusses these and other questions, including “illegal” ones involving the Rothschild banking dynasty and Zionism.Excerpts:Modernity, AIKevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audiovisual. Kevin Barrett here, doing podcasts of one sort or another since 2006, when I got expelled from the academy for wrongthink, I guess it was. So I’ve been doing wrongthink ever since.And here to do some wrong thinking with me is Paul Cudenec. He’s a notable dissident from the UK, and he’s got a Substack which is highly recommended. He contributes to publications like Winter Oak and Organic Radicals, which I just discovered. It’s all very cool stuff and harks back to my deep history as a kind of left-leaning, anarchist-leaning troglodyte Luddite, thinking that the modern world and progress and all of that stuff is not so great. So I think we’re pretty much on the same page on a lot of things. Welcome, Paul Cudenec. How are you?Paul Cudenec: Thanks, Kevin. Nice to be able to speak to you. Kevin Barrett: Where should we start?…These days there are a lot of backwards-looking folks who, like us, are not enamored with the modern world…there is a right wing who want to expel all the immigrants from Europe and the West and go back to Conan the Barbarian land and be heroically militaristic and that sort of thing. And likewise there are others who are not enamored of progress and pseudo-equality and fake liberation movements who are skeptical of the right-wing approach. How do you situate yourself among those of us who are skeptical of material progress as the be-all end-all? Paul Cudenec: I come to this through anarchism. I was active in the anarchist movement in the UK for years. I live in France now, actually…I’ve never liked the modern world: consumerism, supermarkets, factories…the idea that it is a life-stifling force, that we are forced to live inside this great machine…I’ve got over that now. Actually, I think I’ve got a very particular role in the current time in pointing out what’s wrong with the system we live in, informed by what I know of how we used to live, but with the purpose of forging a future that is better than the present we live in now. It’s inspired in some ways by elements of the past, but only the elements that we like. It’s not possible to recreate the Middle Ages or the Bronze Age. It will be a different society…Kevin Barrett: So today people are telling us that AI will make us all elite. AI, these robots, will do all the work, and theoretically they could create great beauty, just like great civilizations created great beauty in the past. But you and I, I think, are a bit skeptical of turning the world over to AI and its overlords. Why are those people wrong who say that AI is going to save us?Paul Cudenec: Well, there are so many reasons, aren’t there? Even the idea that AI can create beautiful things is disproven just by looking at a piece of AI art. I recognize it now. It took a while to realize that particular style was actually AI creating things. I mean, it’s hideous because it’s false. To me, anything that is beautiful—I associate beauty, in the classical tradition, with truth and nature. Those things belong together.Some creative professionals may be able to use AI to do away with boring, mundane work—filling in forms or whatever—but they will still have their creativity in their job. For most people, AI is placing them in little boxes and telling them what to do. AI is becoming their slave master, basically, their boss.It’s also the prison guard to their cell, deciding things without any communication, without any causation, without the slightest hint of humanity—which you would expect from a human boss. There would at least be some understanding there.This is going to be a rigid system, far worse than any of us have experienced before.And, of course, it’s going to continue to destroy nature, the living world, with these data centers they’re building everywhere, sucking up all the water. How selfish of us to think we should be prioritized for drinking water over the demands of the AI industry. They’re cutting down trees and building power infrastructure to provide the electricity these systems require.Kevin Barrett: Do you think there’s a built-in reason why AI is not going to make things better? It’s basically an imitation machine. The chatbots imitate human speech, human conversation, human discourse.Paul Cudenec: Deliberate falsity—not just accidentally. It’s been set up that way.The good thing, though, is that this imitation may prove to be its downfall. I’ve read that AI goes around the internet finding things to adopt as its opinions and source of knowledge. Increasingly, it’s finding mistaken material generated by AI itself and feeding that back into the system.So yes, I think you’re right, and I hope they can’t get past that. Maybe they think if they build enough data centers they can…—-Zionist CensorshipKevin Barrett: The basic logic they’re using is pretty incredible. Supporting Palestine is supposedly a call for genocide against the Jewish state. Wait a minute—I thought it was kind of the other way around, wasn’t it? Who went there and tried to get rid of the people who were already living there? I don’t think it was the Palestinians.Paul Cudenec: No, exactly.The last time I was in the UK, I spoke at an event staged by an organization called The Real Left. It used to be called Left Lockdown Skeptics during Covid.I wasn’t the only speaker making the point that it’s the same networks and the same entity behind both agendas. I ended up talking about Judeo-supremacism and the power of the Rothschilds.A Jewish anti-Zionist speaker who had spoken earlier that day and whose speech I had enjoyed—because she explained how, despite being Jewish, she’d been accused of anti-Semitism for opposing Israeli actions—actually became offended by what I was saying. She accused me of anti-Semitism and walked out.That was the last time I was in the UK. I think the temperature has been notched up a bit since then on those issues.It’s not that different in France, really. I think they’ve gone a little further in Britain, but there is a lot of pushback. That’s encouraging. There are many people speaking out on this issue on social media and elsewhere.Kevin Barrett: So now in the United States, it’s actually a certain branch of the Republican Party that’s pushing these restrictions. They’re banning what is really a pretty mainstream style of thought and analysis.Back when I was in the academy, being radically pro–Third World liberation and supporting Palestinian liberation groups was considered perfectly normal in many circles.It was the same thing with South Africa. Everybody saw it as the same thing. Mandela freeing South Africa—everybody agreed on that, except for a small minority.Supporting armed resistance against occupation was not considered an extreme position. Everybody supported that. Now it’s treated as illegal. It’s strange. The views that were acceptable if not almost mandatory in the academy where I used to work are now effectively prohibited. I’m still having a hard time adjusting to that.(For the full conversation, watch the video or listen to the audio above.) This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkThe US-Israeli war on Iran is already pretty weird, even before we start factoring in Chinese-alien intel technologies, mind-waves controlling Trump, psychedelic “jellyfish” drone formations terrifying pilots and taking down F-15s, EMF weapons that cause droughts (and yield downpours when you blow them up), Uri Geller issuing red-alert Mullah-telepathy warnings as he attempts to eat kosher hummus with a flaccidly drooping spoon…do we even need such stuff to see this as the oddest war ever?It is deeply strange that a mid-level regional power like Iran can utterly defeat the world’s most powerful military. It’s bizarre that the supposed religious fanatics who rule Iran speak and act with tact, reason, consistency, and restraint, while the president of the United States blathers incoherently, alternating drooling obscenity-laced threats with equally incoherent outbursts radiating peace, love, and call-option-friendly investment optimism. And perhaps the most bizarre sight of all is the global economy drifting slowly and inexorably towards a cliff, like an unconscious canoeist drifting towards Niagra Falls, while gathered onlookers (the markets) seem oblivious to the catastrophe that is about to unfold.Already cursed to live in interesting times, we don’t need the curse to get worse (and presumably even more interesting). But Iran war fringe stuff is definitely a thing, and as far as I can tell nobody has tried to bring it all together. I asked Gemini:Has anyone written a comprehensive article about “fringe” phenomena from the Iran war?  I’m talking about reports like: *Uri Geller says Iran is using mind waves to control Trump. *F-15 pilots are terrified of Iranian drones flying in “alien jellyfish” formations. *Iran accuses the US of weather warfare and claims it ended its drought by blowing up US radars in the Gulf States. Gemini answered:“There is no single, all-encompassing article that covers all of these ‘fringe’ and unusual stories.”Until now.And I’m the man for the job. Before I learned Arabic and became an Iranian-TV Middle East expert, I moonlighted as Dr. Weirde, author of Dr. Weirde’s Weirde Tours: A Guide to Mysterious San Francisco. What’s more, my academic training included studying reports of fringe phenomena as background for a Ph.D. dissertation comparing miraculous and supernatural claims in medieval Moroccan saints’ legends to contemporary personal experience narratives. So the precise spot where Islamic-world-geopolitics meets high weirdness is my bailiwick. Where to begin? We might as well start with the jellyfish. Last Wednesday, Press TV’s headline announced: “Downed F-15 pilot’s account of ‘alien’ Iranian jellyfish formation shocks US intel.” According to the report:The US military and intelligence community were thrown into a state of profound shock and disbelief when an American F-15 pilot, shot down over Iran in April, reported witnessing a sight that defied conventional understanding of Iranian military capabilities.According to a report by CNN on Tuesday, which cited four sources familiar with the incident, the pilot described seeing multiple Iranian drones hovering in the air, moving in perfect unison, in a formation that eerily resembled a jellyfish.CNN quoted one of the pilots:“Multiple drones interconnected and moving as one with smaller drones below the bigger drones like legs,” one of the sources familiar with the pilot’s witness account told CNN. “Real alien sh*t.”But is it “alien sh*t” or Chinese sh*t? China is famous for its amazing sky displays featuring drones flying in incredibly dense and complex formations.While Iranian drone engineers may be cooperating with their Chinese counterparts, we shouldn’t imagine that Iran isn’t capable of breakthrough drone innovations without outside help. Iran is an engineering powerhouse, as the US military is learning the hard way. Google tells us:Iran produces roughly 230000 to 250000 engineering graduates annually. It routinely ranks in the top 3 to 5 countries globally for total engineering graduates outperforming major economies like Germany and Japan. A standout characteristic of Iran’s engineering landscape is that women comprise up to 70% of its STEM and engineering graduates one of the highest ratios in the world.Wait a minute…Isn’t Iran a medieval theocracy that keeps women barefoot and pregnant? That’s what Fox News and the Iranian royalists in Beverly Hills keep telling us. I guess those barefoot and pregnant Iranian housewives must be finding the spare time to sit around in their chadors earning online engineering degrees and building extraterrestrial-looking drone swarms that can take down F15s. Radical Islam at its absolute scariest!So there’s probably nothing extraterrestrial or supernatural about Iran’s “alien jellyfish drones.” As the Ukrainians found out the hard way, Iran has good drone engineers.And while we’re debunking dubious legends, let’s quickly disabuse ourselves of:*The Khordad “UFO” Sightings & Metallic Spheres: An AI hallucination…ask your favorite AI about this and it will spin a completely fictitious yarn, inventing a tale that will make the accounts of the craziest human UFO abductee seem relatively plausible. *The Persian Gulf “Cthulhu” / Caspian Sea Monster Reports: Another AI hallucination, in which Gemini takes a deep whiff of DMT and tells us:* The Claim: A fringe maritime rumor alleged that sonar technicians aboard coalition warships detected massive, unidentified biological anomalies in the Strait of Hormuz. The more extreme versions of the rumor claimed Iran had “weaponized deep-sea creatures” or unearthed an ancient anomaly to attack naval vessels blocking the strait.* The Reality: This rumor was a highly distorted game of telephone regarding Iran’s asymmetric naval tactics. To counter American naval primacy, Iran deployed hundreds of semi-submersible, low-profile speedboats and remote-controlled explosive aquatic drones to bottleneck the Strait of Hormuz. To sonar operators and radar systems, these small, erratic, wave-skimming signatures looked highly unusual, which internet forums quickly spun into “sea monster.”But there is no such rumor. Gemini hallucinated it by taking the insane American psy-op about Iran supposedly weaponizing kamikaze dolphins, adding a pinch of HP Lovecraft and a very real fleet of Iranian speedboats, and turning the mixture into a bad acid trip.*The ‘New Nostradamus” predicted the Iran war. It seems that on or around February 22, some British guy who calls himself “the new Nostradamus” predicted the US would go to war with Iran in March. But you didn’t have to be Nostradamus to notice the US had sent nearly all its available military assets to the region and would likely attack. What’s more, the self-styled soothsayer Craig Hamilton-Parker expected the war to end almost instantly, saying it would be: “a swift and limited operation: It will escalate quickly, then stop.” The tabloid Times of India tells us: “He also references symbolic imagery from earlier readings, ‘yellow and red flags’ and ‘a lion soaring above Iran.’” In other words, Hamilton-Parker expected the Iranian royalists, who are despised by nearly all of the Iranian people, to take over Iran in the wake of a swift US victory! Wow. Talk about a Nostra-dumb-ass!Real Paranormal RumorsSetting aside the ridiculous claims of hallucinating AIs and ill-informed fortunetellers, there actually are some interesting paranormal rumors about the US-Israeli war on Iran. Some can be sourced to the Iranian side. According to some Iranian sources, Iran has not only been waging war on the Epstein class, but also against the child-sacrificing worshippers of Baal. Iranian demonstrators, and pro-Iran demonstrators around the world, have repeatedly burned statues of Baal in “a symbolic protest linked to renewed online conspiracy theories surrounding the late financier Jeffrey Epstein and alleged child abuse by Western elites.”The Jerusalem Post tell us that these are just “antisemitic conspiracy theories.”The Post article begins:Iranian state-aligned media and senior regime figures have again invoked supernatural and conspiratorial language in describing the conflict with Israel, with recent and past material referring to a “war of occult sciences”, “Zionist sorcery,” jinn, and Jewish talismans. The theme has also surfaced in Iranian claims that Israel used “occult and supernatural spirits” during the 12-day war.So claims that beneath the surface of the Zionism-vs.-Iran war is “a war of occult sciences” are just antisemitic conspiracy theories…except that Israel is also offering its own version of the claim. Israeli media reported this week that “Uri Geller Claims Iran Used Mind Waves on Trump Over Iran Deal.” According to Grok, which does not appear to be hallucinating:In a Channel 14 interview on June 22, Geller said Iran deployed low-frequency waves—like telepathy but tech-based—to sway Trump into signing the June 17 Islamabad Memorandum, a 14-point pact extending a 60-day ceasefire, reopening the Strait of Hormuz toll-free, and offering Iran $300 billion in reconstruction aid tied to nuclear talks. The deal, inked at France's Palace of Versailles and in Tehran, drew fire from Israel's right-wing circles as too soft, with no new nuclear concessions from Iran. No evidence backs Geller's claims, which experts dismiss, while online mockery highlighted his past CIA psychic ties amid Israel's frustration over the U.S.-Iran thaw.Geller claims that he has done psychic work for intelligence agencies, beginning with the Mossad, for decades, and that this kind of activity is carried out by all governments. I emailed him, asking:Is this accurate? “Uri Geller Claims Iran Used Mind Waves on Trump Over Iran Deal” https://x.com/i/trending/2069127215397396752I mentioned that my go-to psi science source Dean Radin has spoken highly of his spoon-bending abilities, and invited the Israeli psychic and friend of Netanyahu on my podcast. Geller replied:Yes I believe they did and I have inside intel info. However I do not do podcasts. But watch these:https://www.reddit.com/r/remoteviewing/comments/l2dc2u/the_secret_life_of_uri_geller_psychic_spy_bbc/Call me crazy, but I believe Geller and the Iranian anti-Baal people. I think Geller is right that governments have weaponized psi. Jon Ronson’s The Men Who State at Goats was designed to obfuscate that reality by skunk-spraying it with humorous ridicule. The reason I have Geller’s email is that I hang around private online groups with people—many retired intel folks—who understand these things. So count “governments use psi” as one of those conspiracy theories that are very likely true. But the evidence isn’t very respectable, and much of it is circumstantial, so don’t hold your breath waiting for Ron Unz to write an American Pravda piece.Weather WarfareHere’s another weird conspiracy theory about the Iran war that is likely true: Iran’s reservoirs are suddenly brimming with water in the wake of rains that “coincidentally” started falling as soon as Iran blew up most of the US’s radar stations in the region. According to left-leaning Global Research, respectable voices in the region have long been accusing the US and Israel of stealing rainfall from targeted countries:Iraqi MP Al-Kaikhani in turn has claimed that Washington and Tel Aviv had been “stealing clouds”, causing droughts regionally.The right-wing French RIVAROL published a similar article, translated by the Occidental Observer. Excerpt:AN ABNORMAL DROUGHT THAT DRAGGED ONAbout fifteen years ago, the then-President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, repeatedly claimed that Western powers (under American influence) were “stealing” rain from Persia and much of the Middle East (including Iraq). Naturally, at that time, almost everyone in the West considered the strongman of Tehran a crackpot, a conspiracy theorist who, moreover, had the misfortune, it was assumed, of being a notorious historical revisionist.Westerners continue to silence or deny what Mahmoud had calmly stated. In 2018, Iran officially accused the United Arab Emirates and Israel of stealing its rains, when the senior official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, declared: “Israel and another country are working together to prevent Iranian clouds from raining.”The New York Times reported that the country Jalali did not name was the United Arab Emirates, which has launched a cloud seeding program by injecting chemicals into clouds in an attempt to induce rain in its favor, but also to prevent rainfall in Iran.Today, however, many Middle Eastern elites are talking about the extreme drought and equally abnormal heat that have plagued the region for ages. We also recall that before the war against Iran, the country had suffered for years from a dramatic water shortage that directly endangered the people, especially the nation’s capital, whose inhabitants (and first and foremost the government) were ready to flee rather than become parched or dry out like old stones.THE RETURN OF THE RAINAnd then, suddenly, a miracle amidst the misfortunes! In Iran, the clouds finally wept, abundantly and regularly, and temperatures returned to normal (dropping by an average of five degrees Celsius). A few days after the first Iranian strikes against American bases located in the United Arab Emirates and elsewhere on the Arabian Peninsula, the regional climate changed completely.I don’t dismiss these claims. Around 2015, at the VIP building of Imam Khomeini International Airport, I met a man who said he was an engineer working on an Iranian program aimed at countering the US weather warfare program. He said the Americans were responsible for the draught in Iran, as well as the related one that had opened the door to regime change in Syria, and that the programs involved electromagnetic energy. He added that Iran was making great progress countering them, and expected to have the problem solved in the fairly near future. (Apparently he didn’t realize back then that the only solution was to blow up US radar stations!)Hyper-Precise Targeting IntelAnd finally, one more “true conspiracy theory”: Iran has hit US targets with shocking accuracy, sparking rumors about advanced or esoteric technologies. The Wall Street Journal just published another article featuring satellite photos showing just how accurate those Iranian missiles really are. But Iran is using engineers, not psychics. Gemini, its DMT apparently worn off, tells us: “Esoteric” Chinese Tech and Satellite TargetingThe Claim: Reports allege that Iranian missiles are striking Western and regional targets with a hyper-advanced, pinpoint precision that did not exist months ago, driven by clandestine or “esoteric” Chinese intelligence and technology transfers.The Reality: The tech isn’t magical or spiritual; it is a highly sophisticated digital architecture. Intelligence experts point to Iran utilizing China’s BeiDou satellite navigation network, alongside algorithmic AI targeting data, to bypass U.S. electronic jamming. Furthermore, leaks have exposed intricate corporate supply chains funneling massive amounts of Chinese sodium perchlorate (a critical solid ballistic missile fuel component) directly to the IRGC. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]So the bottom line is: It’s a weird war. Nobody in the chattering classes of the West expected Iran to be able to pull off a coup of this magnitude. And among those who didn’t realize who they were dealing with, and didn’t understand until too late that they were picking on the wrong country, were such self-styled Nostradamuses as Craig Hamilton-Parker, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Bibi’s credulous sycophant, Donald J. Trump. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkDissociated PressIn a characteristically brilliant diplomatic coup, US president Donald “3D Chess” Trump has convinced the Iranian government to sweeten the Memorandum of Understanding so Trump can claim it includes something—anything—other than abject and unconditional surrender.Below are the additional 10 amendments to the MOU leaked to Dissociated Press by an unidentifiable White Horse souse.Amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding Between the US and Iran1) Iran insists: We don’t just promise never to build nuclear weapons, we CROSS OUR HEARTS AND HOPE TO DIE!2) Iran will build a stunning monument to Donald Trump: a 1:100 scale LEGO replica of Mar-a-Lago, called Mar-a-LEGO, to be placed on a traffic island in central Tehran. Iran promises never to blow it up, cinematically or otherwise, as long as Trump doesn’t violate the deal.3) Jared Kushner can have a very small island in the Persian Gulf if he promises not to build a bunker or rape any children there.4) Iran promises that it will not gloat, chortle, or smirk as it takes possession of the $300 billion tribute payment from the defeated United States.5) Iran pledges to redouble its efforts against ISIS and al-Qaeda, starting with the US-supported government in Damascus.6) Iran agrees not to sue the Trump Organization for using the trademarked currency name “rial” for a forthcoming cryptocurrency roll-out of “The Trump Rial,” as long as Trump makes it clear that Iran neither endorses nor has any role in this or any other Trump Organization scam.7) Iran agrees not to release any Trump-Epstein files, and to fire at least 100 missiles at Tel Aviv if Israel releases them, and maybe even if it doesn’t.8) Iran agrees to help Trump throw Netanyahu under the bus: Ayatollah Khamenei Jr. will take his arms, Trump will take his legs, and they will swing Bibi back and forth a few times and then throw him beneath an AEC Routemaster double-decker London transport vehicle traveling at 40 miles per hour through central Tehran packed with tourists paying exorbitant prices to observe the proceedings from close range. Proceeds will be split evenly between the Trump Organization and the Revolutionary Guards.9) Iran promises never to say anything positive about former President Obama and his very-bad-not-good JCPOA, nor anything negative about Trump’s very fine extremely wonderful Iran deal, a deal like nobody has ever seen before.10) Iran sweetens the deal with a promise to supply the White House chef with a full year’s supply of top-grade Iranian pistachios, accompanied by ten cases of pistachio-flavored Diet Coke. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkRasheed Muhammad of the Red Pill Diaries interviews Kevin Barrett.Excerpts:Kevin Barrett: “The Iranian psychiatrists have been advising the Iranian negotiators on how to deal with a megalomaniacal psychopathic narcissist. And the Iranian negotiating team says they’ve been doing much, much, much better ever since they got that advice from Iran’s top psychiatrists.”“Trump curses out Netanyahu and says, everybody hates Israel. Trump has said maybe a dozen or a couple of dozen blurt-outs that were more truthful than anything any president has said about these topics for a long time. So I did my satire saying, yeah, the Iranian psychiatrists are taking credit for curing him from psychosis, and now he’s back in the reality-based community.”“And then Vance is backing him up saying that the Israelis should be very, very careful because Trump is the only head of state in the world that can stand them anymore. ‘We’ve got one guy, one head of state in the world who runs the world’s most powerful country, who still doesn’t hate their guts, who still is sort of on their side. Maybe, if you behave yourselves.’ So yeah, it seems like if it’s all an act, I don’t see why. It has no point, because they’re not going to fool the Iranians into letting their guard down. So no, I think it’s actually just reality setting in.”Rasheed Muhammad: “So that’s what happens with empire at the end. It seeks to regain a lost hegemony, a lost global dominance through military adventurism, but that only accelerates the decline. That’s true at the end of every empire: the Austro-Hungarian Empire which stumbled like the Germans into World War I, the Athenian Empire that attacked Sicily and all its fleet were sunk…that’s what empires do.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link (show features tribute to Cat McGuire)There are lots of great female activists and commentators out there. One of them was Cat McGuire, the False Flag Weekly News co-host who passed away on Friday. Watch Helen Buyniski and I remember Cat at the beginning of this week’s FFWN.But why in the world would anyone ever pay any attention to…Laura Loomer? When I asked Google “who the h* is this person” the answer came up: “Laura Elizabeth Loomer (born May 21, 1993) is an American far-right political activist, conspiracy theorist, and internet personality.” Right…but since she’s unpleasant and unintelligent, why does anyone care about her?Well, it turns out (surpise surprise) that she has friends in high places. Google says she enjoys “direct, high-level access to President Trump.” Like Monica Lewinsky, Loomer appears to have been “sent” to the President of the United States by rich Zionist Jews. But don’t joke about Loomer “Lewinskying” Trump, or she might sue you, like she sued Bill Maher when he said something about Trump making her put a bag over her head before she’s allowed to crawl under his desk. As an apparent junior member among Trump’s circle of Jewish handlers, which is headed by only slightly more intelligent and experienced individuals like Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Laura Loomer may have access to inside information. So when she tells us that a false flag “ten times worse than 9/11” is on the way, we can’t entirely write it off as the feebleminded ravings of a drooling Islamophobic idiot. Link to tweetGlenn Greenwald has a point: Israel has a record of orchestrating terrorist outrages, assassinations, and false flags when it feels its back is up against the wall. They killed JFK to get nukes. They did 9/11 to hijack the US military and send it against the seven countries Israel viewed as threats. What wouldn’t they do to prevent the US from implementing a peace deal with Iran that throws Israel under the bus?A huge false flag blamed on “Muslims with financial ties to (anti-Israel) podcasters” might not pass the verisimilitude sniff test. But neither did the JFK magic bullet, nor the 9/11 demolitions, nor the Charlie Kirk magic bullet for that matter. So if midtown Manhattan gets vaporized by an Iranian nuke financed by Tucker Carlson’s Qatari bank account, and Israel breaks out in celebratory dancing while [[[the media]]] plays endless loops of Palestinian kids bribed with candy pretending to celebrate, don’t say Laura Loomer didn’t warn you.Israel might stand to benefit from a purported “Muslim terror attack” that was only nine times bigger than 9/11…or possibly even smaller than that. The political climate in the USA is unfavorable to Trump’s handling of Iran, but even less enthusiastic about blowing up the global and domestic economies by shredding the deal. But things could change overnight in the aftermath of a big “Muslim terror attack.” If the event were blamed on Iran, Trump’s deal, and the economy, would both go up in smoke. And if the attack were catastrophic enough, it might generate the political will to put the half-million or more “boots on the ground” that would be required for a real attempt to impose a regime change on Iran. And that, of course, is what Israel wants. That is why Netanyahu and Mossad chief David Barnea lied to Trump to trick him into attacking Iran in the first place. As with the CIA lying to JFK to con him into approving the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, the president was told: “We can easily pull off this regime change without sending in the Marines,” when in fact the whole purpose was to grease the skids for a full-scale invasion.They could also assassinate Trump and blame it on Iran. Using a Hezbollah-style fiber-optic FPV drones to take out the President presumably wouldn’t be that hard. Those drones have a range of up to 30 miles! Why bother climbing onto rooftops or trying to catch Trump at his Mar-a-Lago golf course, as the various fake wannabe Trump assassins have, when you can hit him from miles away? Blaming a patsy would presumably be much easier when the actual drone operator is far from the kill zone. But the Mossad probably won’t kill Trump, because JD Vance has been all but telling them not to. Vance’s recent anti-Israel blurt out translates to a simple three word message: “Don’t kill Trump.”"Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time. And he happens to be the head of state of the world's superpower. If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally I have left.”Translation: “If I were Israel, I wouldn’t be killing the only powerful ally I have left…because the next president would turn Tel Aviv into a parking lot.”Bibi, of course, might make sure that there are two “Iran-sponsored Hezbollah FPV drones” so that Vance is taken out along with Trump. That would leave Mike Johnson, Chuck Grassley, and Marco Rubio manning the line of succession. Interestingly, all three publicly support Trump’s Iran deal, while the rest of the Republic Party howls in outrage in hopes of attracting lavish infusions of kosher cash. (Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, Bill Cassidy, Mike Pence, and Nikki Haley, among others, have openly revolted against the deal, blasting Trump's MoU as a “fiasco" and "the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”)Has someone from the US side of the Deep State whispered in the ears of Johnson, Grassley, and Rubio about how unseemly it would look, and how dangerous it might prove to be, were anyone in the line of presidential succession to give Israel the impression that killing the people ahead of them might serve Zionist interests? Inquiring minds would love to know.Given the unpropitious line of succession, the Israelis might prefer false flag terrorism over assassination, as Laura Loomer’s unsubtle tweet seems to suggest. But what kind of terror attack? Targeting “the tallest building” is a long-time Zionist obsession, according to Christopher Bollyn, who reveals that Mossad founder Isser Harel stated in 1979 that “Islamic terrorists” would destroy New York’s tallest building because it was a phallic symbol. It so happens that the tallest building in America is One World Trade Center in New York City at exactly 1,776 feet. What’s more, One World Trade Center is owned by the notorious Jewish terrorist and insurance fraudster Larry Silverstein, a close friend of Netanyahu, who confessed on television to being party to the demolition of WTC-7 on 9/11. Silverstein also owns the 73-story US Bank Tower, conveniently located only six miles from the heart of Hollywood and its thousands of Jewish cinematic magicians and storytellers who could help “sell” the Iranian terror attack plotline.But maybe blowing up tall buildings and blaming it on Muslims is too “been there done that” i.e. “worked once, won’t work again.” So let’s help our Mossad friends brainstorm about how to carry through on Loomer’s threat. Here are a few ideas:*White House Reflecting Pool Algae an Iranian Bioweapon—Devours Washington DC!*Trump Vaporized by Exploding Golf Ball that Turns Out to Have Been an Iranian Mini-Nuke!*Iranian Sleeper Cell Hidden in National Weather Service—Controls Rain to Ruin July 4th Barbecues! (They Made It Rain in Iran By Blowing Up US Radars, So What If They Make It Rain HERE?!)*CIA Warns: Every Third Pothole in America May Be a Secret Iranian Missile Silo!*Entire East Coast Blackout Caused by Single Iranian Operative Unplugging Very Large Extension Cord!*Nuclear Alert Issued After Suspicious Persian Cat Seen Near Strategic Air Command Headquarters!*Iranian Cyberhackers Blamed for Mind-Eating Social Media Virus Named Laura Loomer!And if those aren’t stupid enough, feel free to drop some even stupider ones in the comments, in hopes of making the Mossadniks who are reading this laugh so hard that they forget to launch a false flag ten times worse than 9/11. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkExcerpts:Richie Allen:..Iran says an end to Israel’s hostilities in Lebanon is inseparable from the deal. But the Israelis are saying “our forces will remain in the country indefinitely.” Where is all this going to lead? Let’s welcome back to the program a friend of ours, the academic author and broadcaster, and long-time contributor to Iran’s Press TV, and he has traveled extensively in Iran, it’s always a pleasure to welcome back to the show our old pal Kevin Barrett. Kevin, how are you?Kevin Barrett:Hey, I’m well Ritchie. Great to be back with you.Richie Allen:Thank you very much, my friend. And you said to me this morning that it’s nice to be reporting good news for a change. So as far as you’re concerned, this is good news. This is reason to be optimistic. Kevin Barrett:Well, it’s better than most of the news. Richie Allen:Yeah, I’ll give you that. Kevin Barrett:Yeah, I think peace is better than war. And Iran basically winning is better than any alternative. So yeah, this agreement clearly favors Iran. Whether it’s going to last without blowing up again is an open question. But in the meantime, I think it’s basically a good thing that it’s opening up the possibility that the US is going to have to break from its total subjugation to Zionism and to Netanyahu. And we’ll see whether that actually plays out. But if the US is going to adhere to the terms of this agreement, it’s going to have to order the Israelis to pull out of Lebanon, pull out of Gaza, and this is going to be unprecedented. So it has potential to be something very good for the region and the world, but I don’t know if the odds are favouring that outcome. ..…that opens up a couple of different possible futures, right? And whether the American Platonic Guardians or Deep State are up to taking on the Israelis, again, is an open question. Richie Allen:I don’t personally believe that any president is really running things, but let’s just imagine I’m wrong because I’m often wrong. Let’s imagine Trump really is running the government, the administration. If he is, this is abject humiliation. Kevin Barrett:Well, it should be and it would be if Trump were rational. But Trump is quite capable of spinning delusions to support his narcissism. So I’m sure there will be handles he can grab onto to claim that he’s getting something better than Obama did. (And Trump can try to blame Netanyahu and say that when Netanyahu promised him the war would be a success) he was lying. Either that or he was totally incompetent and screwed up. So it’s Netanyahu’s fault, Trump! It’s not your fault. Blame it on Netanyahu. Blame it on the Israelis and go after them with all guns blazing. And that’s exactly what you need to do. Richie Allen:How many resolutions Kevin? How many resolutions at this point in history, how many resolutions were passed in the United Nations condemning and ordering the Israelis to stop the settlements and to stop the interning of Palestinian children? It’s got to be in the hundreds, right? Must be. Kevin Barrett:Yeah, I think there are hundreds of these UN resolutions telling Israel to do things that it’s never done. And the two most important ones are, was it 192, there’s 240 something, I’m forgetting the numbers right now, but the two keys resolutions. The first requires Israel to allow Palestinian refugees who were driven out of Israel by terrorism to return to their homes and be compensated for their suffering. And then the other one is post-1967, demanding that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders. Because the principle that you can steal territory by launching a war has been officially contrary to international law since World War II. So those are the two key resolutions. Israel has to allow all Palestinian refugees to return, and to return to its pre-1967 borders—or better yet its UN borders…though the international consensus is for the 1967 ones.Richie Allen: Tell me this, has Gaza and the horrendous problems facing the Palestinian people been forgotten in the wake of the attacks on Iran and Lebanon? Kevin Barrett: Well, I don’t think it’s been forgotten. Actually, the people of Gaza have been saved, in a way, by Iran. Though Iran is being more forthright about stopping Israel’s war in Lebanon. But likewise, Iran is going to demand the end of this war on Gaza as well…Richie Allen:Norman Finkelstein has been a very prominent pro-Palestinian voice for many many years. And his aunt I think or his mother was in Auschwitz. So he’s an interesting character He came out and said something which I’m sure you’re aware of, which I found interesting. He said that he’s not at all comfortable with the US alternative right or the right wing alternative media, namely Tucker Carson, Candace Owens and others, supporting Palestine.Kevin Barrett:Well, I admire the work of Norman Finkelstein. I think he’s basically a good guy. But if you try to figure out where he’s coming from…he is one of these people who’ve grown up in the Jewish community, surrounded by the myths of the Jewish community about Jewish suffering, the persecution of the Jews. Everywhere the Jews have ever gone, they’ve been persecuted by their neighbors, for no reason. And so, you know, whereas some people from the Jewish community react to that narrative and that culture by becoming insufferably narcissistic, and often even psychopathic, like probably the majority of Jewish Israelis, others like Norman Finkelstein react to this narrative by accepting this victim role, this belief that the Jewish people have been victimized, but then universalizing it and identifying with victims everywhere. This puts Finkelstein not to far from the Iranian Shia ideology, which identifies with victims and demands that we stand up for victims. And that’s good. But I think this conditioning, which created the Norman Finkelstein that we know, who is standing up for the Palestinian victims, and even telling a certain amount of truth about the Holocaust industry…I think his ideology and worldview are conditioned by this sacred narrative of victimization that begins, in his culture, with the alleged victimization of the Jews throughout history. And that narrative and that culture make him suspicious of, let’s say, a right-wing American ideology, which is not founded on this defense of victims, which, on the contrary, is actually, to some extent, reacting against the victimization narrative, whether it’s anti-LBGTQ (because the left has made them out as victims) or whether it’s any of the other areas where the left has been identifying with victims. So I think Finkelstein is wary of the American right wing because of that. And I think he probably has some of that atavistic Jewish fear of the goyim getting out of control. And the goyim that Jews are taught they have to watch out for are the nationalistic ones, the right wing ones, the patriotic American or German ones who represent their mainstream majority culture and then are going to be coming after the Jews. Now the right-wingers would argue that’s what’s really going on here is that the Jews always come into these cultures and seize the best niches in the economy and basically become parasites off these cultures and take over the commanding heights of these cultures, especially in finance and media, and when the dominant culture—let’s say white Americans—doesn’t like it, they get into a clash with the Jews. And this leads to the Jews getting expelled or persecuted. If we think about both of these cultures with their narratives—the Jewish left wing one of Norman Finkelstein, and the right wing one represented (in watered down form) by people like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens—we can see why there would be a clash between them.Richie Allen:Yeah, for me it’s just wretched identity politics. I do want to say, and we won’t get into it because Kevin and I have gotten into it before, I don’t agree with Kevin that Jews have not been othered and ostracised and blamed throughout history. Kevin Barrett:I didn’t say that!Richie Allen:No no no, but you did say it’s effectively a myth that the Jews were victims and that they were run out of countries around the world. You don’t agree with that. I think it’s more complicated. I think Jews have been othered and scapegoated and blamed throughout history.Kevin Barrett:Of course they have. But often for good reason.Richie Allen:No, not for good reason. We’re not going there. But yeah, for me, it comes back to identity politics, really. And it’s the bane of my life, Kevin. And we’ve had this before you and I. Ultimately, salvation, I think, lies in realising that whatever our beliefs are, whichever God we pray to, we’re all the same mate. And there is an unfolding tyranny that has gripped the world. It’s a technocratic tyranny that’s building up and it doesn’t spare anybody. I mean, it’s funny isn’t we talk about these things. The most austere, the most heavy handed of the restrictions during the COVID times were undoubtedly in Tel Aviv and in Jerusalem and in the towns of Israel. The Israelis were absolute b******s to their own people during that particular time which I think is worth mentioning now.It’s fascinating Kevin the Finkelstein thing it really is because he suffered greatly because of I believe because of his activities you know he lost tenure, didn’t he, at Paul University, if I’m not mistaken. And he went after Alan Dershowitz, didn’t he? And they came down pretty heavy on Finkelstein, the lobby, the Israeli lobby. So I’m fascinated by it. I think if you leave aside... it was a brilliant answer you gave by the way I think you’re probably on the money there but for me I look at Carlson and Owens and I see grifting Kevin. I see it being about engagement farming and brand building, follower building and ultimately money building. But I say that probably far too often for my listeners’ liking. But that’s where I see it. I don’t see any sincerity in it. Am I wrong? Kevin Barrett:Yeah, I think you’re wrong if you think that there’s no sincerity at all in people like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. I think they’re both probably pretty sincere overall, more so than when they worked for Fox News, and more so than the people who stayed at Fox News. So, yeah, I wouldn’t go quite that far. Was it Mark Twain who said that “it’s hard to get a man to see something if his income depends on not seeing it.” And so people like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, when they were working for Fox, there were a lot of things that they didn’t see. And then they started to see some of them. And I think they were sincere enough to be willing to step outside of Fox and speak more honestly about a lot of these issues. But even today, even in the positions that they are in today, there may be places that they just sort of unconsciously don’t want to go. Richie Allen:Fair enough. I’m not going to come back on that. I’ll give you the final word on that. Listen, the High Court in this country ruled earlier this year that the UK government’s proscription of Palestine Action was unlawful. That was right. It was a good decision. It shouldn’t be a terrorist offense to support an organization that ultimately wants to bring an end to the tyranny of the Israeli state against the Palestinians. But the government appealed it, and the court has ruled that the banning of Palestine Action was indeed lawful. Kevin Barrett:Yeah, it’s pretty outrageous that opposing genocide is illegal and can get you imprisoned in the UK. And supporting genocide, which one would think would be practically a capital crime, is actually pretty much mandatory. So we’re living in a topsy-turvy, upside-down world, to say the least. I actually kind of like the American tradition of First Amendment jurisprudence, which says that the only way your speech can be restricted is if there is a really direct connection between your speech and something seriously unlawful. In other words, if I want to say “Here’s why I support Palestine Action, or Hamas, or whatever”—and I have, I wrote a long essay about why I support Hamas, giving all sorts of good reasons, I think. Anybody’s welcome to argue with me and tell me why they think I’m wrong. Obviously that shouldn’t be illegal. What should be illegal is if I am giving some kind of a speech in a situation where my impassioned words are going to directly lead to somebody committing a crime. That obviously is what “crying fire in a crowded theater” would refer to. So these 80-year-olds in London who hold a little cardboard placard saying “I support Palestine Action”—can anybody really argue that people who see that placard are immediately going to run out and commit some crime? It’s ridiculous. So Great Britain really should be ashamed of itself, that this is going on in the country that gave us free speech in Hyde Park, and the Magna Carta, and all these things. It’s outrageous. Richie Allen: It’s outrageous. You’ve got the lobby here telling the British government that when people use slogans like “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” that what it really means is it’s okay to kill Jews...It’s interesting that you’re speaking to me from Morocco, where you did write that very lengthy, well-written article about why you support Hamas. You know, the way it is here (in the UK), if you were working here, you would be in jail now. That’s how crazy it is. I mean, I’ve always said, I don’t fence straddle. I never have done. I always give the opinion that I really believe, the one I really believe. I don’t support any group or I don’t support anybody. I never supported the IRA. And I’m a die-hard Irish republican. I don’t support any group at all. But the Palestinians have every right to resist their occupation. In fact, it’s enshrined in the law that they have the right to resist. But it has become so utterly despotic now, that if you were living and working here, you’d be in jail for saying you support Hamas. That’s a fact. Kevin Barrett:Well, if I run out of money, and I can’t pay for my rent and food any more, which could happen since they’ve deplatformed me from Patreon and Youtube and Stripe and all of these places, I guess I could scrape together my last twenty dollars and buy a Ryan Air ticket from Morocco to London and get off the plane in London and tell everybody about my article and I could have my food and housing covered for the rest of my life by the British taxpayer…(For the full unexpurgated interview, check out the audio or video track above.)Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link TruthJihad linkLive Press TV interview broadcast 6/11/26 @13:15 pm Quds TimeKEVIN BARRETT:Well, once again, we’ve seen that Trump and the Americans are lashing out in frustration because they’ve lost the war. They lost within the first 24 to 48 hours, and they have no more realistic options. They’ve bombed all the military targets they can bomb with massively diminishing returns, and so now they’re going after civilian targets. The New York Times just reported on its front page this morning that the destruction of two reservoirs in Bamani, in southern Iran, appears to be a war crime. If the New York Times is telling us that the American government is committing an obvious war crime by targeting civilian drinking water, and they’re putting that on their front page, you know there is some dissension going on, and some strategic problems, afflicting the command and control of the American empire.So basically Trump is lashing out, vacillating between ridiculous exaggerated threats and equally ridiculous exaggerated claims that peace is at hand so the markets should be happy in order to help Trump’s and the Republicans’ prospects in the upcoming elections. He also probably would like to calm things down in time for the World Cup because the Americans are already getting all kinds of terrible publicity around the ways that they’re treating people. They’re not even allowing the Iranian team to sleep in the United States. They have to take a three hour flight into the United States, and then fly out that same day. It’s ridiculous. And they’re treating fans in similar ways, turning people back who have perfectly good visas and so on, and subjecting people to torture as they try to get through American immigration. So the Americans are looking terrible in front of the world right now, and Trump doesn’t want them to look even worse, as it’s obvious that he’s lost this war. But what can he do? Bomb civilian facilities? Meanwhile, Iran is hitting military targets. Iran hit, I believe, 21 different US bases across the region, and apparently hit a hangar in Jordan containing advanced U.S. aircraft, F-35s.So, once again, the same pattern keeps emerging, where Iran remains disciplined, goes after military targets, and goes after strategic assets like control over the Strait of Hormuz. The United States, with nothing military or strategic that it’s capable of doing, just lashes out and then Trump’s mouth lashes out as well.PRESS TV:Kevin Barrett, why isn’t Donald Trump trying to cut his losses? Domestically, his approval ratings are awful. The economy is being affected with this unwarranted war. Regionally, I think, the U.S.’s reputation has taken a massive hit. One would think that instead of convoluting the situation even more, adding more knots to what already is, that the Trump administration, Donald Trump itself would be trying to cut his losses, but that’s not happening.KEVIN BARRETT:Well, Trump has personality issues. As Bandy Lee wrote back maybe 10 years ago, Trump is clearly a pathological, narcissistic sociopath. And he has delusions of grandeur, as we see in all of these tweets where he tweets himself as Dr. Jesus and all these things. He’s the last person on earth that could ever admit they made a mistake.So had he been a rational human being, and then had Trump even been minimally rational, as soon as it became clear within the next 24 to 48 hours after that attack on February 28th that it wasn’t going to work, that’s when Trump should have laid the blame on Netanyahu and gotten the hell out. That’s when he could have cut his losses to an absolute minimum. And he still would have had to deal with Iran running the Strait of Hormuz, but he wouldn’t have been in this position where the Americans just keep digging this hole and they’re going deeper and deeper and deeper. You’re supposed to stop digging when you’re in that situation, but apparently Trump and his advisors don’t know that. And part of the reason (for US inability to cut its losses) along with this unfortunate personality of Trump’s, is the fact that not just Trump but the American government in general is largely influenced if not controlled out of Tel Aviv. And the Israelis are in a terrible strategic situation. They are seeing that their dreams of regional hegemony evaporate as Iran and its allies assert themselves in the region, gain control over the Strait of Hormuz, potential control over the Red Sea, and escalation dominance with their missile force that can’t be touched since it’s in underground storage. And suddenly Israel sees its dreams going up in smoke, and all they can imagine doing is continuing to force their American vassal, from whom they collect trillions of dollars of tribute, to bleed itself digging this hole deeper and deeper.So how does this all end? I think ultimately they are going to somehow have to cut their losses. And maybe Netanyahu going down will be the way it all pans out, and the Zionist entity will then appoint new leadership, try to blame Netanyahu for their excesses and failures. And then maybe Trump will again try to shift that blame to Netanyahu and try to find a way to wriggle out. But Iran’s going to be on top when that happens.PRESS TV:Kevin Barrett, let’s also talk about the Iranian response to the Israeli attacks that took place in the south of the Lebanese capital, Beirut, in the Dahia district. So Iran, it held its word. It kept up its word. It said if an attack. He also said that the ceasefire must encompass the entire resistance front. How significant was that, seeing the retaliation being carried out against the Israelis by these.KEVIN BARRETT:Well, this case of Iran drawing a red line and then acting when it was crossed actually changes the whole regional equation, as all the observers, including Western observers, are admitting. Prior to this, Iran was so restrained that it really never, ever hit anybody unless it was hit itself. And now Iran drew that red line around Beirut and said if Israel goes ahead and bombs Beirut, then Iran will retaliate.This raises the possibility that Iran can now dissuade and deter the Zionist entity from its most egregious excesses, potentially not only from bombing Beirut, but perhaps even ultimately forcing the Zionist entity to withdraw from places like the parts of Gaza that it occupies, as well as southern Lebanon. And if to the extent that this happens, we will have to see some major radical change in leadership in Tel Aviv. They’re going to have to admit failure. And that’s probably going to require scapegoating Netanyahu and coming up with new leadership. And it won’t be that much better. It’ll be devoted to genocide and expansion. But they’re going to have to admit that they lost this round. So Iran’s drawing this red line around Beirut and then standing by it and punishing the Zionists for crossing that red line completely changes the regional equation.PRESS TV:Kevin Barrett, you mentioned the IAEA resolution the anti-Iran resolution where the Board of Governors they adopted this anti-Iranian resolution that happened on Wednesday. The resolution has been called everything from being flawed to being illegal as well. Is there a big question mark right now over the legitimacy and with it the independence and reputation of the IAEA?KEVIN BARRETT:Well, the IAEA has shown that it’s a corrupt cat’s paw for this evil empire that’s ruling the world through nuclear threats. The Zionist entity is the world’s worst case of nuclear proliferation. They are not signed on to the NPT in any way shape or form. They’re blatant serial violators. They stole the nuclear material to build hundreds of nuclear weapons from the United States, with the help of the Kosher Nostra organized crime ring that dominates the United States. And so the IAEA was actually complicit in the war on Iran by putting out their resolution essentially seeming to give some kind of justification for the attack on Iran. And so they have a terrible record and this is not going to help. Ultimately they’ve been proven irrelevant and the world is going to have to come up with some new institutions to deal with the problem of proliferation.Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link (recorded Sunday, minutes after news broke of Israel crossing Iran’s red line by bombing Beirut)“Crazy Bibi” could have made good money selling furniture in Philadelphia: “Hurry, hurry, hurry, these prices are f*ing crazy!” Instead, he’s running Israel’s going-out-of-business sale, peddling tens of thousands of corpses of Palestinian and Lebanese women and children, while the world is no longer buying his excuses.Bibi could have made even more money in commodities speculation: “Come on down, hurry, get your August oil futures—these prices are REALLY f*ing crazy!”But Bibi has one Trump card and he’s playing it for all it’s worth. Though we can’t be sure what’s on the card—is it Trump performing a sex act on Bill “Bubba” Clinton as stated by Jeffrey Epstein in an email to his brother, or something even worse?—it’s obvious that Bibi is the butch and Trump is the femme, mirroring the Roy Cohn-Trump “mentorship,” meaning that Netanyahu just keeps leading Trump around on a leash, ignoring the Orange Poodle’s pathetic little yelps.That’s why when Trump tells Netanyahu not to strike Iran, Netanyahu gives Trump the proverbial finger and bombs Tehran anyway.But you know what’s really f*ing crazy? I’ll tell what’s f*ing crazy: Israel is conducting a hostile takeover of the US military. If there is a reason that every politician who supports this shouldn’t be summarily executed for treason, please let me know in the comments, because I can’t think of one.As I write this Monday at 1 pm Quds Time, corresponding to 6 a.m. US Eastern, it isn’t yet clear whether the US will be fully dragged into the revved-up Iranian-Israeli hostilities. But I wouldn’t bet against it. Even pre-hostile-takeover, the Israeli-US war on Iran is a joint effort, and the US is obviously the junior partner. Essentially Israel’s entire military is being provided free of charge by the US taxpayer. It’s the US, not Israel, that used up half of its entire arsenal of THAAD interceptors protecting the genocidal Zionist entity occupying Palestine. There is no reason to think Trump will actually use all of that theoretical leverage provided by the fact that the US taxpayer completely pays for the fake state of “Israel” in order to gain any meaningful degree of separation from the “f*ing crazy” mad dog terrorizing West Asia.If “Israel” succeeds in embroiling the US and its Gulf vassals in major escalation, not only will what’s left of US bases in the region be pummeled, and US ships damaged and perhaps sunk, but the Red Sea will likely be closed by Iran’s Yemeni allies, driving global oil prices towards the Götterdämmerung that everybody except the futures markets has been predicting. What’s more, I wouldn’t bet on the life support systems in Zionist-occupied places like Kuwait and especially the UAE continuing to support life. Without electricity for air conditioning and desalinization for potable water, those so-called countries will barely be fit for snakes and lizards. Message to Linh Dinh, who rashly flew to Dubai a few days ago: Please remove yourself from the “plastic a*****e of the universe” (Faulkner thought it was LA but he hadn’t seen Dubai) before the lights go out and the taps run dry!Are there any American national security insiders getting tired of “Israel” dragging the US, West Asia, and the world into complete ruin? Possibly. A few days ago someone leaked a story to The New York Times about the Pentagon facing a “growing espionage threat from Israel.” (How much greater the Mossad threat could possibly get after they’ve already killed a president and his about-to-become-president brother, slaughtered US sailors on an unarmed spy ship 59 years ago today, and blown up the Twin Towers in the mother of all false flags, remains to be seen…)Max Blumenthal reported an interesting detail about the “growing Israeli espionage threat”: The Mossad got caught planting bugs in the Secret Service vehicle that would lead the response to any emergency involving the president. If you had contingency plans for another assassination of a sitting president you might want to do something like that.But there’s no obvious reason why Israel would want to assassinate Trump, who services Bibi with barely a peep of protest. So maybe they’re bugging the Secret Service emergency vehicle just to send a message: “Because we can!”Ever since Trump let Netanyahu drag him into the idiotic and criminal February 28 attack on Iran, and the Iranians responded by seizing permanent control over the Strait of Hormuz, Trump has been flailing around desperately trying to minimize the public perception of the size and scope of the disaster, while reassuring markets that everything will be soon returning to normal. Daily distractions, alongside occasional obfuscations, have sufficed to keep markets from fully facing the terrible truth.Now that the war is exploding again, what new distractions await us? Humorists note that if war on Iran was a distraction from Epstein, now Trump needs more Epstein revelations as a distraction from his ever-more-disastrous war on Iran. But from Trump’s perspective, an even better distraction would be aliens abducting Steven Spielberg and landing on the White House lawn as a PR stunt for Spielberg’s new film Disclosure Day. (Spielberg denies conspiracy theories that his film will be grooming the public to believe in aliens, but then, he also denied that Schindler’s List was grooming the public to believe in the Holocaust, so it’s best to take anything he says with a proverbial grain of salt.)Will the aliens arrive just in time to watch Trump serve as ring girl when Bibi MCs the first big UFC fight at the White House?And would “aliens land to watch UFC fight at White House” succeed in distracting the public, and the markets, from the Zionist-incited total implosion of Earth’s economy?Or maybe they’ve got an even bigger distraction up their sleeves. If and when they whip it out on us, you can bet that False Flag Weekly News will be there to expose the sordid, shocking truth.Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News linkIsrael just prevailed in its scorched earth campaign against the USA in general, and the state of Kentucky in particular, by “primarying” Rep. Thomas Massie. Since they couldn’t Epstein him, the Kosher Nostra used AI to generate a suggestive clip of Massie having a “threesome” affair with Democrats Ilhan Omar and AOC. Welcome to the AI era! Who needs Epstein and his gaggle of teenage sex slave shiksas when you’ve got AI? From now on, Israel will just create fake videos of imaginary misbehavior on the part of anyone who doesn’t follow their orders.But how long will that strategy work? Fox News addicted boomers who can’t tell AI from reality, and who love the “Israel” they learned about from Leon Uris, are dying off. Younger Americans are increasingly disgusted by Zionist Jew lies, Zionist Jew depravity, and Zionist Jew genocide. Massie won more than 80% of the Gen Z (under 30) vote. He won the 26 to 35s 72%-16%. He won Gen X (ages 36-64) by a greater than 6% margin. Unfortunately for Massie and America, the MOFs (moronic old farts) turned out in great numbers, and two-thirds of their votes went to Massie’s Israel-owned opponent, Ed Gallrein. Or did they? The senior (Israeli) citizen voters were responsible for practically all of the mail-in ballots, and the vast majority went to Gallrein. In an interesting coincidence, Gallrein’s total mail-in haul of 10,854 votes perfectly covered his margin of victory of 10,283 votes. Were all ten thousand plus of those Zio-ballots actually filled out and mailed by old fogies who were compos mentis? The 2020 election, Trump’s supporters never tired of telling us, was stolen by Democrats who made sure that entire senior centers full of zombies voted unanimously for Biden. Trump himself calls mail-in ballots “election fraud” and “cheating” and has been trying to ban mail-in voting, but hasn’t succeeded so far since the Constitution deems that states run elections and the details are handled by local administration.But for some reason Trump hasn’t been protesting Gallrein’s victory and demanding a thorough inspection of all those mail-in ballots to see whether they were postmarked in Tel Aviv. That’s probably because Trump has never had a job in his life except money launderer and front man for the Kosher Nostra.Though Israel got away with primarying Massie, like it primaried Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman and a long list of people before that, it likely won a pyrrhic victory. By exposing Israel’s control of the US Congress in an unprecedented way, and outraging the majority of non-retirement-age people nationwide, the Zionists are wasting what’s left of their soft power—their appeal to hearts and minds.AIPAC’s Massie takedown happened in the wake of two of Israel’s worst-ever PR disasters: The New York Times’ exposure of Israel’s unbelievably disgusting torture of Palestinian prisoners, including training dogs to commit rape, was quickly followed by Ben Gvir sharing a video of himself joining Israeli guards in abusing the humanitarian activists who were attacked and kidnapped a thousand kilometers from Israeli shores and taken to Israel for brutalization.With all of this self-inflicted PR damage, Israel is sacrificing any potential it may have had for a long-term future in favor of minor, short-term gains. As it wins at the tactical level, by successfully kidnapping and abusing activists, kidnapping and dog-raping Palestinians, or getting honest politicians thrown out of the US Congress, it loses bigly strategically. That’s also true of the Israel-driven war on Iran. As neocon superstar Robert Kagan has been grumpily observing, the vicious attack on Iran February 28th basically forced the Iranians to permanently seize the Strait of Hormuz, thereby raising Iran’s status as a regional power by several notches. While the sneak attack succeeded tactically by mass-murdering Iranian leaders and schoolgirls alike, it will go down in history as one of the most colossal strategic failures ever recorded. (If Israel thought Iran pre-Hormuz was an existential threat, just wait till you see what’s coming.)Tactical success creating strategic failure seems an Israeli speciality. That’s basically the thesis of Ronan Bergman’s Rise and Kill First, which chronicles Israel’s grotesque history of political assassinations (while leaving out the biggest ones, including the Kennedys). Bergman notes that Israel has grown increasingly proficient at murdering its leading opponents, but that every time it murders a Resistance leader, new Resistance leaders arise in his place to present even greater threats. That is certainly what happened when the Zionists wiped out a major segment of Iran’s leadership February 28, uniting the country behind equally-capable leaders who are even more hardline than the martyred ones.Why do the Zionists keep shooting themselves in the foot by shooting people they would be well advised not to shoot? Why do they brag about dog rape and abuse of humanitarian activists, when strategically it would make more sense to respect basic decency and international law? Why do they make a pushy, obnoxious spectacle of themselves sacrificing Thomas Massie, whose influence could have been dealt with more subtly and effectively through low-key, rational politicking? And above all, why do they keep behaving in ways that increase the determination of their Middle Eastern neighbors, and an ever-greater segment of the world’s population, to be done with them, when they could easily accept the international consensus of Oslo, Camp David, and so on, and assure themselves of a decent future?E. Michael Jones, who is leading a conference I’m attending here in Croatia, says “the Jews are the enemies of Logos.” By Logos he means something like “the God-given rationality, order, and beauty infusing creation.” Dr. Jones argues that the Jews, in rejecting Jesus Christ, rejected Logos, and have been at war with it ever since. That is why they are infused with a spirit of hatred and ugliness and grotesquely aggressive behavior that turns out to be self-destructive.Dr. Jones makes a pretty good argument for that thesis. But Zionist Jews themselves, with their outrages against decency and morality and reason, are making an even better one. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkThe series of chemical weapons hoaxes—false flag incidents that helped NATO and Israel overthrow the Syrian government and install their current ISIS/Al-Qaeda puppets—are unraveling. Today Dr. Piers Robinson joins us to discuss this issue by way of his recent article “Dr. Brendan Whelan's ILOAT Win Reveals Clear Evidence of OPCW Corruption.”TranscriptKevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audio-Visual. I’m Kevin Barrett, doing this podcast since 2006. I try to bring on the most interesting writers and translate them into audiovisual. One of the best writers right now is Piers Robinson. He’s a fellow refugee from the controlled academy. We’re not so controlled now (that we’ve left). Piers has done great work on a number of issues. We recently did a podcast on his work on the 9/11 planes. And now we’re going to revisit another of these big deceptions and scandals: the Syria chemical weapons thing. It’s hard to say whether it even was a thing. So let’s find out. Hey, welcome, Piers Robinson. How are you?Piers Robinson: Good to see you, Kevin. I’m doing well, thanks.Kevin Barrett: Good to have you back. So these chemical weapons accusations against Syria during the war that finally brought down the Syrian government a couple of years ago always had the stench of dubiousness about them, to say the least. But it was kind of hard to nail it down and prove exactly what was going on. It was complicated, right? Lots of alleged attacks going both ways.Piers Robinson: You are correct. There was one in Homs in 2012 in December which was a staged event and they tried to spin it off as a sarin or a nerve agent attack. But very quickly the wheels came off that and I think even the US State Department backed away from the claims being made. But that was one of the very earliest incarnations of what I describe as essentially false flags, staged events.Kevin Barrett: Bush had joked about Iraqi WMD and pretended to be looking for them under his desk. It turned out to be a complete hoax, and yet they rolled out the same thing for Syria. How do they get away with that?Piers Robinson: Well, that’s the incredible thing about it. Syria was one of the 9/11 wars. It was planned (by the neocons): Wesley Clark famously blurted out about the seven countries in five years, and Syria was one of them. So it was always one of the countries which they were going to use the 9/11 false flag in order to get a war going. And of course with Syria it didn’t really get going until 2011 when you had various covert operations and also multiple external actors fueling dissent within the country and then really pretty much almost immediately triggering unrest.Well, of course, there were no weapons of mass destruction there. But in the UK you had Dr. David Kelly, Britain’s top biological weapons expert, who had a rather candid conversation with the BBC and said that the British government had sexed up the intelligence on Iraqi WMD.At the same time, you had Ambassador Wilson in the US, who had been sent to Niger to investigate the yellowcake uranium claims, and he said pretty much the same thing. On both sides of the Atlantic you had very high, very significant officials basically saying that there was no WMD in Iraq because they were manipulating the intelligence.A lot of people became aware of that in the fullness of time. Then came Syria. It’s quite remarkable that one of the decisions they made — and I suspect some of this was to do with Israeli involvement, but a lot of it was actually rooted in UK Foreign Office planning — was to build a narrative around demonizing the Syrian government and Assad using the same set of allegations, this idea that there are chemical and biological weapons.Of course, in the case of Syria, the allegation was that Assad was using these weapons. In a way, it’s surprising that they embarked upon the same kind of deception again, but then perhaps not so surprising because it did work the first time.Kevin Barrett: Right, but people woke up to it, supposedly.Piers Robinson: People woke up to it, but they got the job done. But then that’s quite a long time to 2011. And I think you had the whole Arab Spring narrative building up around 2011. And I think it was easy for what was happening in Syria to get folded into that.There was a build-up to this, because prior to this there was an interesting series of alleged chemical weapons attacks. It actually started in March 2013 when there was actually an attack on Syrian army soldiers using a nerve agent. And the Syrian government went straight to the United Nations and said, “We want an investigation. Some of our soldiers have been killed and we believe it’s a nerve agent.”Almost as soon as the Syrian government had done that, you then had these counter accusations coming in from Britain, France, Qatar and the US alleging that the Syrian government was using chemical weapons.You had the emergence of what I understand now as essentially staged events. This is where you started to have the involvement of, for example, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former British military officer who’d set up a company called SecureBio. As we know now, he was part of an MI6 sample-gathering operation in 2013.So you had this kind of interesting build-up to Ghouta 2013, all set around this invitation or request from the Syrian government: come in, send in the UN, send in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and get this investigated.Then all of these other allegations suddenly started being thrown out by the Americans and the Brits and these kinds of events occurring in Syria.When the joint OPCW-UN team arrived in Damascus in August 2013 to begin their investigations, at exactly that point there was a mass rocket-launch sarin attack in the suburbs of Damascus in Ghouta.So this is what we’re being asked to believe in terms of this narrative building: that the Syrian government legitimately requested the UN OPCW to come in, the inspectors get into the capital and then within a week or so you have this mass sarin rocket attack in Ghouta with a large casualty count.The details of this are a little bit more complicated than that. I know some researchers argue that actually not that many people were killed by sarin and a lot of these people were probably massacred.I think there are elements in the US who were part of this red-line creation. I think it was pushed by external actors in Israel as well. Obama famously backed away from it. He was given information from Clapper that this was not a slam dunk.They backed away. Russia, of course, defused the situation by persuading Assad to hand over Syria’s strategic chemical weapons stocks, which Syria always had essentially as a deterrent against Israel’s nuclear capability.But Assad said, “Okay, we’ll go along with this. We will sign up to the Chemical Weapons Convention and we will dispose of all of our weapons.” These were all put onto Cape Ray, an American warship, and then destroyed.That was the point at which the red line didn’t quite work for those wanting the full-scale intervention, but it did, I think from Israel’s point of view, get to this point of the disarmament of Assad.Kevin Barrett: For sure.Piers Robinson: I think with hindsight, knowing what we know now, it was a mistake. And it was also clearly a mistake because this didn’t bring an end to it.Within a year of Syria having acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention and getting rid of its sarin stocks, you then had the sudden emergence of chlorine allegations.Chlorine historically as a battlefield munition was used by the Germans in the First World War. You need huge quantities of the material. You’re talking with these alleged tactics of chlorine cylinders dropped, they burst and chlorine would pour out.Kevin Barrett: Like somebody was getting in by the roof with a bottle of bleach from their laundry and kind of dropping the bleach bottle.Piers Robinson: Yeah, but this worked and these alleged attacks started to occur. Then the allegations started to be delivered from the usual suspects: Assad has now started to use chlorine weapons against his own population.The British government was very much involved in this. The Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence were involved in the sense that they had the White Helmets set up, as some of your listeners are probably aware. They had various other outsourced operations in Syria.The important point is around 2014 where the OPCW got drawn back into investigation of these attacks. What happened was that they set up an ad hoc body called the Fact Finding Mission, the FFM missions. These were there to deploy into the country.They were told that they had clearance to go in, so they went into opposition-held territory. But just as they crossed the line outside Syrian government-controlled territory where they had been safe, their convoy was ambushed.Two of the OPCW teams were held hostage for about 24 hours. They hit an IED. There’s a picture of their UN car severely damaged.At that point — and you can probably start to guess what might have been the rationale for opposition groups attacking the OPCW convoy — the OPCW decided they couldn’t safely send teams into those territories.So you had this setup where you had the OPCW with this ad hoc Fact Finding Mission set up to go into Syria, but then not being able to get in on the ground and relying upon information being supplied by groups aligned with belligerents in the country.In the case of the White Helmets, these were groups aligned with opposition forces.This went on for several years. I’ve gone through a lot of these. I’m working on a book on it at the moment. I’ve done a series for UK Column.Some of these allegations were transparently false, and yet they got reported on by the OPCW Fact Finding Mission and ultimately started to build this alleged body of evidence: here we’ve got another investigation, another chemical attack, not confirmed, but reasonable grounds to suspect this is going on.There was this period between 2014 and 2016 where what you had were essentially fairly crudely staged false flags or staged events.Some of the claims being made are laughable. In one instance, one of the early instances where the Fact Finding Mission gathered evidence from information supplied to them, there was a crater on the ground surrounded by dead animals. This is where one chlorine cylinder was supposed to have impacted and created the huge crater.Ninety metres away there was another yellow cylinder on a kitchen, which was claimed to have occurred at the same time.It was reported at the time by the White Helmets and the usual suspects promoting it over social media.So you had almost comical but ultimately effective operations because the OPCW Fact Finding Missions were very much, I would argue, co-opted by the intelligence services, certainly of Britain and other Western powers.They were basically serving up what the US wanted, what the British government wanted, what the French wanted and what the Israelis wanted.Even when you had these implausible scenarios being presented, more occurred throughout 2015 and 2016.There was a bizarre idea that chlorine was being generated in tiny quantities through improvised devices.As some people pointed out at the time, this was absurd. One person I know connected to the OPCW said, “Well, that will create enough chlorine to kill maybe a field mouse. Why not just drop a cylinder of chlorine?”But it helped create this impression of dastardly weapons being created by the Syrian government. That ended up in an OPCW report.Again, the same setup. By this point the White Helmets were very much in the driving seat of these chemical attacks. They turn up, they feed the information back, and they became key sources of information going back to the Fact Finding Missions.This was facilitated by James Le Mesurier, the former British military guy who was having direct contact with the OPCW inspectors. So you can see the dangers of the corruption of the process there.That rumbled on until 2017. In a way this helped maintain the backdrop narrative of the Syrian government systematically using chemical weapons.But it wasn’t necessarily having the splash they wanted. So this is where they moved to: okay, we need to bring sarin back into play here, even though the Syrian government has given up its sarin stocks.We were trying to hold this line that Assad was just using chlorine gas cylinders. Now that doesn’t really kill a large number of people. It’s not a particularly dangerous weapon to be using in that way.So then you had the Khan Shaykhun sarin attack, which the Trump administration bombed Syria over a week later.The White Helmets were heavily involved in that. Ted Postol, the American MIT ballistics and weapons expert, argued that this was a staged or false-flag event in order to try and get the Trump administration to carry out a bombing.Khan Shaykhun killed a significant number of people. I think about 40 people were killed in this sarin attack.I know people who’ve looked at it closely and said this is clearly a staged event. People are killed, but it’s a false-flag event which has occurred.This was around the point where I started, as an academic, to look at this issue.Then came Douma in 2018. About 43 civilians were killed. Again America, Britain and France bombed in retaliation, so it was very big news.It was initially presented as a sarin attack. These people were filmed in an apartment block with foam in their mouth and so on. It was argued at least initially by the US that this was a nerve-agent attack.The OPCW FFM team got into Syria. Just as the Douma alleged attack occurred, the area fell to Syrian and Russian forces. So for the first time the OPCW were actually able to get in on the ground and investigate themselves.All of those previous alleged attacks had relied upon the White Helmets. Now suddenly, because the Syrian government had secured the area almost immediately after the alleged attack, the OPCW Fact Finding Team were able to get in on the ground.America, Britain and France bombed anyway before they even got to work.This is where the wheels came off the Fact Finding Missions and the investigation of these attacks.The OPCW inspectors who were in charge of writing the original report ended up arranging to visit NATO weapons experts and chemical weapons experts, who gave unequivocal feedback that these people could not have been killed by chlorine.There’s no sarin present, but the actual features you see on the civilians and the numbers don’t make sense if chlorine gas had been used. It would make sense if a nerve agent had been used, but not chlorine.So immediately there was a problem.At the point at which the interim report was supposed to be published, Brendan Whelan and the others produced a report saying, “Okay, we need to do more work, but we have toxicology findings that don’t support chlorine.”They also raised concerns about the cylinders supposedly pouring chlorine down into the house and killing the 43 people in the building.They set this out in a very objective interim report which essentially raised the possibility that this could well be a false flag.That report was signed off by the Douma team. But at the point at which it went to publication, Brendan suddenly discovered that the report had been completely changed.The report they’d written had been rewritten to basically imply that this was definitely a chlorine attack. “We’ve got a bit more research to do, but that’s pretty much what happened.”That was the start of internal dissent within the OPCW, with Brendan Whelan challenging his superiors and saying, “What on earth is going on? Somebody has literally come in and rewritten our report.”Everything from there, for about six, seven or eight months before the final report came out, involved internal battles going on within the OPCW.Then when the final OPCW report came out in 2019 basically saying there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the Syrian government carried out a chlorine attack, the whistleblowers realised they had witnessed a manipulated and corrupted investigation.They tried to speak out internally.Other things started to happen. I was part of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, and we were leaked an engineering study commissioned by Ian Henderson, one of the OPCW inspectors.The engineering assessment basically said that these yellow cylinders were more likely to have been placed by hand. It’s very unlikely they fell from helicopters.The cylinders didn’t punch holes in ceilings. These cylinders were placed there.We published that document in the Working Group and then all hell broke loose within the OPCW.We’ll talk about Brendan’s win at the International Labour Organization in a few minutes. But the issue remains unaddressed by the OPCW.The OPCW have continually refused to even meet with the scientists who were blowing the whistle.As I say, everyone has been to varying degrees smeared.Now we are in this kind of holding pattern on the issue where obviously the Syrian government fell in 2024.The OPCW has created a new special missions office to try and seal up the Syria file. We’re all waiting for them to pull out some evidence, haul in some people they’re going to accuse, and so on.But we don’t know what their play is going to be. They obviously have a huge amount of their credibility invested in this.That was a long introduction, but that kind of covers everything, I think.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, it’s kind of a different approach to false flags than 9-11. 9-11 was one huge thing all happening on the same morning and hijacking headlines reverberating out from there.Piers Robinson: As I said before, the basic setup with the OPCW Fact Finding Missions is they’re relying upon information supplied by the White Helmets.Another thing which came out of the Douma scandal was that the Office of the Director General in the OPCW and the Chief of Cabinet — which is considered the key power position — had oversight.You had a British career diplomat in charge during Douma, later replaced by a French career diplomat.The political and bureaucratic office had oversight of the investigation, while the verification and scientific divisions of the OPCW were kept away.So you actually had the political office taking control of the process.We know at Douma that the 43 civilians who were found dead in the building were almost definitely killed somewhere else.They were probably killed by Jaysh al-Islam, probably under the watch of British intelligence.So you’ve got some pretty dirty dealings going on as part of this narrative building.James Le Mesurier, as you probably know, fell to his death from his apartment building in Turkey two weeks after an OPCW official had given testimony at the Brussels panel.There are a lot of question marks over how he came to fall off the roof of his building in the middle of the night.But he was closely involved in this operation. We know that. We know he was this kind of channel between the White Helmets and the OPCW process.Our involvement in this was pretty horrifying.This is why when I was with a group of academics and we started looking at the Syria chemical weapons issue back in 2017 and early 2018 — this was before Douma — within weeks of setting up that Working Group we were on the front page of The Times of London being described as Assad apologists.These were pretty unknown professors in Russell Group universities.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I remember that.Piers Robinson: We realised, boy, we’re right over the target. They really, really wanted to shut us up.Kevin Barrett: It didn’t take them long. With 9/11, the 9/11 Truth Movement had been building up slowly for several years before they finally pushed back in the summer of 2006.That was also when a group of academics had gotten involved. Scholars for 9/11 Truth had suddenly gotten about 100 people on record, with the possibility of a lot more. That was when they pushed back.Apparently you guys were doing a better job, or at least doing it quicker.Piers Robinson: Tim’s still in position. I’ve worked hard to keep publishing in mainstream academic outlets and still managed to do that. I count that as a major victory given the amount of mud thrown at us.But this is how the system works. You can shut people up by reputational attacks.As I say, I’ve managed to get stuff published in the last few years.We did this big report for Mick Wallace and Clare Daly when they were MEPs.I’m writing a book and I had a meeting with a mainstream academic publisher and said, “This is the book I’m going to do on the whole Syria OPCW chemical weapons issue.”There’s a chance I’ll get it out with a mainstream publisher.But it’s difficult. As you know, there’s a lot of gatekeeping in academia.But I’ve still managed to work with people in mainstream academia. I still publish and write and present and give talks.It hasn’t been total exclusion. That was certainly my sense in 2019 and 2020. I thought, “Well, this is going to be the end of me having any involvement in mainstream academia.” But it hasn’t worked out that way.Still, I’m a naive optimist about these things.Kevin Barrett: Isn’t it bizarre how suddenly the fact that Syria is now controlled by ISIS and Al-Qaeda people — one would think it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to think those people might actually have been committing atrocities. Yet the media, which demonizes radical Islam and built the whole War on Terror on demonizing Al-Qaeda, is totally happy with having the president of Syria being Al-Qaeda because he represents the West.Piers Robinson: It is amazing. That whole narrative flip or inversion of what we see is extraordinary.Of course, this is picked up on by Massie and other American politicians.The whole Islamic fundamentalist narrative was constructed. Essentially it’s false. This is a product of the intelligence agencies of the West, with Israel absolutely at the center of it, spinning a massive deception on audiences in the West.Do you think we’re at the point — as we were saying in our last talk with Iran — is this a point of failure in the West? I’m not quite sure where it’s all going at the moment.Kevin Barrett: I’m still hoping my predictions from 20 years ago hold true. I’ve always thought that a combination of a really grave military defeat plus an economic implosion could lead to the kind of situation that got the Argentine generals thrown out after the Falklands.It seems like the global economy is heading for the cliff right now.So it looks like that combination of a catastrophic military defeat followed by an economic implosion. Maybe when the pieces get swept up, that’s the time when the angry voices saying, “How did we get to this point?” start to be heard.Piers Robinson: I probably feel the same as you. I’m hopeful and optimistic that there’s a context now where these things can properly unravel and there can be awareness, maybe even accountability.But is there going to be another card played in terms of trying to distract populations? It’s difficult.Clearly the international system is changing significantly. The distribution of power, whether economic, ideational or military, is clearly changing.There’s clearly an awareness-raising going on in the US.It’s realistic now to talk about whether it’s feasible for Israel to continue to exist in its current form given what has just happened.That would have been unthinkable for polite liberals. People like me were considered jihadist crazies for saying things like that 20 years ago.Kevin Barrett: Yeah.Piers Robinson: But they’ve used up their support. Certainly globally it’s at rock bottom.Even in the West, with what we see in Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk — that part of the American right clearly shifting away from this kind of blind support.So something good might come out of that.Kevin Barrett: Right, it’s kind of strange how they’re breaking out the UFO thing right now.Piers Robinson: I think that’s just a sign of weakness. “Oh blimey, you can’t start any wars, you can only do false flags — what can we do now to distract the masses? Okay, we’ll have to go for the little green men.”I don’t believe any of it. I think it’s PSYOP.Kevin Barrett: I’m confused about what the reality is. But I agree with you about the propaganda value or propaganda purpose of what they’re doing right now.We ended False Flag Weekly News this week with the flying saucer video landing on the White House lawn and burning into the lawn: “Release the Epstein files.”I actually did dive into that topic because my PhD work was on Moroccan medieval Sufi saint legends, and those legends are built around miracle stories.So that ties into my longstanding interest in questions of extraordinary phenomena.It does seem that if the whole thing is a big propaganda operation built on nothing, they’ve put an awful lot of effort into it and gotten an awful lot of people involved in counterintuitive ways.So I actually think there is something going on.But whether we’re going to hear the truth from a government commission, especially Trump’s, I wouldn’t bet on that.Piers Robinson: Yeah, they’re going to spin it.I like to keep open-minded about all these things. There’s more things in heaven and earth and so on.But for sure the stuff they’re pumping out is for the purpose of trying to distract from economic crisis.Here in Europe there’s a lot of chatter about war with Russia.Kevin Barrett: Right, and the elites are open about it. Maybe that’s the thing they’re going to do.I don’t understand it. My whole life the assumption has been that Europeans are somewhat more rational than the crazy gung-ho Americans, much less the completely crazy gung-ho Israelis.Piers Robinson: This is an unelected individual in charge of the European Union. This is what they say. It’s not what you hear on the street.We’re in this kind of post-COVID era where there’s already widespread skepticism toward authorities.But getting people ready to go to war really focuses the mind amongst the population.I think there is this historical memory in Europe.What German is going to want his son or daughter to go and die in trenches in Ukraine against Russia?Even a lot of Ukrainians have been reluctant to go along with the press gangs grabbing them and throwing them into vans to take them off to the front-line trenches, almost like World War I except with drones.Kevin Barrett: I don’t know what the attraction would be to that kind of war or to nuclear war, for that matter.And I don’t understand the geostrategic purpose.Honestly, with Europe, I had always thought it would be good if Europe had more power and maybe rearmed a little bit and was more independent and acted as a counterweight to the United States because I always thought the Europeans were more sensible.But now I don’t know.Piers Robinson: I think there might be some economic arguments in there in terms of remilitarization, like kickstarting the economy in a Keynesian kind of way.But I suspect most of the rationale is probably elites keeping control of the population by constructing an external enemy.There’s no strategic interest. Obviously it’s in Europe’s interest to have good relations with Russia. Russia is just over there with lots of cheap energy.So I think there’s no core interest in going toward conflict with Russia.This is elites. We have economic crisis. We have a financial system which is a house of cards. Everyone keeps asking when it’s going to collapse.We have economies which clearly need to be recalibrated given the shifts in the distribution of power globally.The world’s changing and I’m confident we will change because necessity forces change.But as we go through that change you’ve got elites at the top who are trying to hold on to the existing order and their power.This is one of the cards they’re playing: war against Russia.There were big demonstrations in town. There were always local demos every week.So there was pushback there. I think if we get pushed closer to war with Russia, you’ll see the same.I remember that a year and a half ago Sahra Wagenknecht called a demo at Brandenburg Gate. Jeffrey Sachs was piped in by livestream. They pulled 50,000 people at a week’s notice over the Ukraine war.Kevin Barrett: They arrest people for holding placards.Piers Robinson: That was going down in Britain. All of that stuff is very much out of control.But there’s a limit to what they can do with censorship as well.They’re trying to control social media, but you can clamp down there and people will communicate in other ways.I’ve always thought about internet-based communications and their desire to control discourse through technology.Most people also go down the pub and talk to their friends. There is a social world outside the internet and governments can’t control that in the way they want to.Kevin Barrett: This Iran war is the least popular war in US history right off the bat, and yet we’re not seeing huge crowds opposing it. We just see polls showing that nobody agrees with it.Piers Robinson: That’s an interesting question. Support for European leaders is also rock bottom.You have crazy leaders carrying out crazy policies which none of the people support.Is this simply the death throes of the Western Empire? That’s always the backdrop I hope we’re seeing here — a painful process that big powerful blocs and empires go through as they accommodate to a new reality.Kevin Barrett: It’s the emperor’s-clothes thing. But is Trump not already there? Half of his base now pretty much rejects the consensus.Piers Robinson: That consensus group is fragmenting.I’m guessing Charlie Kirk was killed for reasons that are not too difficult to fathom.Kevin Barrett: The people who ran public opinion through the methods you’ve studied for so long are maybe having a harder time now and getting desperate as their empire crumbles. So let’s come back and talk about it as the crumbling continues.Piers Robinson: Keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best.Kevin Barrett: Thank you. Keep up the great work.Piers Robinson: Okay, Kevin. Good to talk.Kevin Barrett: Take care.Piers Robinson: Take care. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News linkWatch the first-ever False Flag Weekly News roundtable above, featuring several of our favorite FFWN fans…plus long-time cohost Cat McGuire and her sister Colleen. (Cat and Colleen open the show discussing Cat’s health condition that led to her stepping down as regular first-cohost-of-the-month.)I have dreamed of finding myself in a strange country where I can’t communicate with anyone. Since I am a native speaker of English, that won’t happen in real life the way it happened to my Moroccan in-laws who visited Turkey and found their Moroccan Arabic, French, and bare smattering of English didn’t work.But I am experiencing something along those lines here in Milan, Italy. I arrived from Barcelona Saturday and have been trying to speak Italian with people. But it keeps coming out as Spanish with an Italian accent. People chuckle and answer me in English.I studied Italian informally for less than a year back in 1989, and have barely used it since. I can read Italian newspapers, thanks to the many cognates with French and Spanish, but have forgotten how to say hello and order coffee.Since I moved to Morocco in 2023 I have been spending a lot of time and effort upgrading my Arabic. Besides the radically different “high” and “low” varieties of Arabic, Morocco also features plenty of French, Spanish, and Amazigh (Berber). There are actually four to six types of low Arabic (darija) and three types of Amazigh. And high Arabic has two very different registers, Modern Standard Arabic and Classical. So you could say that there are thirteen native languages used in Morocco, a nation a little over half again as large as California.I predicted to my students thirty years ago that communications barriers would fall within their lifetimes: English would become even more of a de facto global language, and translation technology would make most spoken and written information available to everybody. Fewer people would bother to learn foreign languages, because they wouldn’t have to. At some point they might not even have to learn English, since they could just speak into their phones and have it come out in whatever language they choose. Those in technical professions would find technical terminology available in their native languages thanks to machine translation. In short, it won’t be long before everybody can easily talk to everybody!That AI-powered Tower of Babel is already half-built. If it ever reaches the heavens, humanity will seamlessly communicate as one. Then again, it might stall and fall, like the original Tower of Babel did. If that happens, it won’t be because humanity has been suddenly shattered into tribes with thousands of different languages, but because people aren’t satisfied with life as atomized individuals. They want families, neighborhoods, community.The False Flag Weekly News CommunityIn 2014—a decade after jumping headlong into the 9/11 truth movement, and eight years after being defenestrated from academia—I created False Flag Weekly News along with Jim Fetzer and the late Allan Rees. Our idea was to critique the media by way of an hour-long weekly news roundup. We would try to cover the most significant stories of the week, debunking mainstream propaganda along the way. I wanted the show to be snappy, fast-moving, heavy on terse but clever soundbites, with lots of back-and-forth repartee including occasional disagreements between hosts. Above all, I wanted to inject some humor. The horrible truths of history and current events are painfully indigestible without the spice of laughter.We started out posting on several YouTube channels and growing a respectable audience, before shadowbanning and later deplatforming kicked in. After YouTube had banned all of the channels featuring the show, it moved to Rumble and Bitchute in 2021. Along the way, FFWN has attracted an intellectually high-end audience, including some enthusiastic supporters who comment on the episodes and/or contribute to the Fundrazrs that keep the show going. (Preparing each week’s episode is labor-intensive, as the co-hosts who occasionally stand in for me can testify.)Thinking “anyone who likes FFWN is probably a pretty cool person, I wouldn’t mind meeting some of them” I set up this week’s show as a roundtable discussion and emailed invitations. Watch the result and drop a comment letting me know what you think: Should I do this again? Part of the fun was chatting with people before we started recording the show. If I do another episode like this, I’ll make sure to reserve a block of time before the actual show for informal discussion. I’ll also need to figure out how to moderate the discussion with greater dexterity, especially if the number of participants grows.The highlight of the evening turned out to be Cat and Colleen McGuire’s surprise appearance. Cat McGuire, with often-unsung backing from her twin sister Colleen, has been an activism dynamo for at least a decade, and was the first FFWN co-host every month for years until brain cancer slowed her down last summer. Virtual vs. Real CommunityCat McGuire is a real-life friend. I’ve visited her in New York, she has stayed in our guest room in Saidia, Morocco, and we’ve hung out in other places. She’s one of those people who, though neither family nor neighbor, I genuinely care about. I really miss connecting with her every month. I’m sad that she is so seriously ill, praying for her recovery, and appreciating the courage and wisdom she’s showing as she deals with her illness by taking her dedication to ihsaan (making things better) to the spiritual plane.I doubt I’d feel that close to her if I only knew her through the internet. We humans are wired for hanging out with friends and family and neighbors in real life (or “meat space” as the autist cyberpunks used to call it). But the digitally-mediated world is giving us ever-less of that. Lonely people stare at their phones all day, addicted to reels and shorts and porn and social media outrage, manipulated by governments and corporations and their hired propagandists.I’m one of the lucky ones who has escaped the worst digital traps and cesspools and instead met an unusually high-quality bunch of people thanks to the internet. I like all the people I’ve gotten to know through the False Flag Weekly News community, including those I’ve never met in real life. And being in Morocco, I’m lucky to be able to hop around Europe on $20 Ryan Air flights meeting some of them in person. (I once even randomly ran into a FFWN fan in Tamraght, Morocco, also about a twenty-buck flight from Oujda.)My weird existence as a rootless red-pilled cosmopolitan (tendance sois-disant antisémite) with a virtual community spread across the world is probably not what human nature intends. Celia Farber, another real-life friend I met through Cat, tells me she craves settling down in a place she can call home, but isn’t quite sure where that would be. Since she has friends in Sweden, she’s thinking of heading there.Assuming the jet fuel doesn’t run out, I expect to be back home in Saidia, Morocco by early June. I’m loosely affiliated with a soon-to-open café-bookstore there, Café Shakespeare, where people will be encouraged to hang out and have interesting conversations in real life. Maybe a False Flag Weekly News fan or two will eventually find their way to Saidia.Meanwhile, the show must go on. Stay tuned to False Flag Weekly News, and feel free to drop by the next roundtable. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkMonika Wiesak is the author of America’s Last President: What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy . In it, she explains in detail why the loss of JKF mattered far more than not only the likes of Chomsky claim, but even more than most of Kennedy's admirers realize. She also dares to explore the possibility, following Michael Collins Piper, Laurent Guyenot, and Ron Unz, that Israel was the prime force behind the assassination. Check out her new Substack article on that increasingly hot topic…it’s very useful background information for those wondering why so many voices with huge audiences including Cenk Uyger and Tucker Carlson, Lawrence Wilkerson and Judge Napolitano, Wilkerson and Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Candace Owens, and most importantly former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who says that more than 10,000 JFK files have been illegally withheld because they reveal that Israel did it have been saying such things.TranscriptKevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audio Visual. I’m Kevin Barrett, doing the radio show for years and now some video too. I try to bring on important authors and writers to translate the written word into some spoken dialogue. We have a very important author today, Monika Weisak. She’s written some great books on a number of topics, probably none more important than America’s Last President: What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy. So…hello Monika, how are you?Monika Wiesak:I’m good. Thank you very much for having me on today. Kevin Barrett: It’s great to have you and meet you. I admire your work. Here is your book on JFK, America’s Last President: What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy. And I think it’s an important book because the only thing remotely close to it that I know of anyway is the James Douglass book JFK and the Unspeakable, which is primarily about the assassination, but it touches on the reasons for the assassination, which were essentially that John F. Kennedy was standing up for the public interest against a long list of people who didn’t have the public interest in mind at all. But your book focuses on that and not so much on the assassination, and I think it’s a great contribution, so congratulations.Monika Wiesak: Thank you.Kevin Barrett: The last chapters on the assassination kind of hint—actually, you could go from that last chapter to the Douglass book, and it would be a pretty good segue, wouldn’t it?Monika Wiesak: Yeah, what I wanted to do is, I felt like nobody had really answered the question. The subtitle of the book is What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy. And I felt like no book had really properly answered that question because the first question to ask about any massive historical assassination is what changed, or what did we lose, or why does it matter? And I felt like a lot of the books were focusing on the technicalities of the assassination or were theorizing about what might have happened.Kevin Barrett: That’s a great point. And that’s actually something that doesn’t come out nearly as forcefully in the Douglass book. It’s kind of implicit, right?And it’s quite shocking, really, how radically different the world might have been had the Kennedy program succeeded. And how do we even start to think about something that massive?Monika Wiesak: Yes. It’s sort of why I put it together, because it was so much more than I imagined. Before I studied his presidency, what I’d kind of heard rumblings of was, oh, maybe Vietnam or things of that nature, but it’s really the whole world. It’s Africa, it’s the Congo, it’s Latin America, it’s Indonesia, it’s Laos and Vietnam, it’s the Middle East, it’s Palestine. All of these policies changed drastically upon his assassination.Kennedy was very much in support of Third World nationalism. He gave a lot of foreign aid to Africa, to Latin America. I think foreign aid to Africa increased something like fivefold. He did the Alliance for Progress for Latin America, which was to help those countries become independent and help make them not so reliant on just a primary export, but really to develop their own economies.I think he just viewed the world as sort of... We were catering to the ultra-wealthy in the United States, as we do today, rather than the lives of your average American.Kevin Barrett: Right. That quality of Kennedy’s, that he actually had compassion for ordinary people and wanted to set policies that served their interests, really shines through in your book. And that includes both Americans and people outside of the U.S. And I think a lot of people have missed much, if not all, of this. I know for many years I’d read people like Noam Chomsky, who is anti-Kennedy and basically tries to claim that anybody who cares about that assassination is completely misguided and Kennedy was ruthless.So to what do you attribute that kind of second assassination of Kennedy that came from many different quarters, including from the left, from Chomsky? What was behind that?Monika Wiesak: Yeah, it’s got to be because they don’t want people to care, right? If you want to cover up a coup d’état that occurred, one of the easiest ways to cover it up—there’s two ways to cover it up, right? One is to cover up the crime itself, which they did with the Warren Commission and whatnot. But they didn’t do a great job of it because it’s a difficult crime to physically cover up.So the other way to cover it up is to make people not care. And in some ways that’s a more effective way.Like Chomsky said, “Who cares who killed JFK? Who cares if it was a jealous husband?” Implying it doesn’t even matter if it was a conspiracy. It doesn’t even matter if it wasn’t Oswald because Kennedy meant nothing to this world.Kevin Barrett: Was he alluding to Cord Meyer and Kennedy’s relationship?Monika Wiesak: I don’t know what he was alluding to, but I think what he was alluding to was that it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if Oswald did it or not because nothing changed when Kennedy died, I think is what Chomsky’s argument is. And you have to really question Chomsky because it’s very obvious that a massive amount did change. One just needs to look at the historical record to see that. So one has to wonder what Chomsky’s intentions were in downplaying it.And I think his intentions were to make people not care. He said that bluntly: why should anyone care?And so I think it’s because something like the assassination of a president is something that can really mobilize people. There are a lot of atrocities happening around the world, and it’s a horrible thing to say, but it’s difficult to get Americans to really understand those atrocities or really put in the effort to try to correct them because they don’t really grasp them. They’re so distant from Americans’ everyday lives.But the murder of America’s president—people understand that. People grasp that. People are impacted by that. So that’s something that could actually mobilize the public.Kevin Barrett: Chomsky also said at one point—and I think when people pressed him on JFK and made some of the points you just made—he switched tacks and said that it would be sort of fatal for the left, meaning his people, to try to take on the people who had the power to kill a president. They would be far too powerful to take on. It would be suicide to try to take them on. He actually said that, which struck me as bizarre.Monika Wiesak:Yeah, that is bizarre, because if enough people speak about it, there’s nothing that can be done about it. You can’t stop the truth if enough people speak on it. Chomsky had a pretty large following, so he absolutely could have mobilized people to try to do something about the Kennedy assassination if he wanted to.Kevin Barrett:Or 9/11, for that matter.Monika Wiesak:Yeah, or any major crime. I think he could have mobilized people, but he chose not to, and I think that makes his career look highly problematic.Kevin Barrett:Yeah, I agree completely. So getting back to this situation that Kennedy faced, it was kind of an interesting historical moment, wasn’t it, with the Cold War taking on a whole new dimension as the USSR was just bringing online a really serious nuclear weapons force that could challenge the American force and actually would match and challenge it within a decade.Kennedy takes over just in time to start overseeing that. And he is really pretty much the only U.S. president, one of very few global leaders in the West, that’s sympathetic to these movements that shook off European domination. Those two things by themselves already, even setting aside the economy and the economic issues and the civil rights issues and so on and so forth, this was really a world historical moment, wasn’t it?Monika Wiesak:Oh, absolutely. And I think there were two major things happening at that time.One was there was a real risk of World War III. There were many in the U.S. military who were itching for war with the Soviets, who thought now is the time to get rid of the Soviets. We have to do it before 1963, before their weapons become too sophisticated. If we do it now, like you said, we might only lose 20 million. If we wait a few years...And at the same time, all of these countries in Africa particularly, but all around the world, had just recently become independent. When Eisenhower was president, he had on average one African leader a year come to the White House. During Kennedy’s 36 months, he had on average one African leader or head of state a month come to the White House.Kevin Barrett:I didn’t know that until I read your book. That’s fascinating.Monika Wiesak:Yeah. So pretty much every month he’d have some head of state from Africa come to the United States to visit. It wasn’t just that he gave them a lot of aid, but he formed very friendly relations with them. He rolled out the red carpet for them.When Algeria went independent, he had this huge event at the White House. It was just this spectacular event for them. And you can’t imagine that happening today in the U.S., all these countries being celebrated.He pushed Portugal hard to try to give Angola independence during his presidency. And he was very supportive of these countries staying unaligned. Back then there was something called the Non-Aligned Movement. That was countries that didn’t want to align with the United States or with the Soviets, but just kind of wanted to be independent and make their own decisions. And Kennedy was very supportive of the Non-Aligned Movement, which was led by Sukarno, the president of Indonesia. They had a conference in Belgrade while he was president, and Kennedy was very supportive of that.So he was not into America being the dominant power. He was into America having friendly relations with all these other independent nations, and he felt that was best for the stability of the world and that was best for Americans.It wasn’t to the benefit of the average American for the U.S. to be an imperial power. It wasn’t to the benefit of the average American for the U.S. to get caught up in wars or to be dominated by a few oligarchs. It was best for the average American to live in a peaceful, cooperative world with other countries. That’s sort of how Kennedy viewed the world.Kevin Barrett:Flynn and Hillary Leverett wrote Going to Tehran, arguing for a sort of JFK-style policy towards Iran. In other words, we don’t have to be totally hostile and constantly sponsor terrorism against them, trying to overthrow their government. We can disagree with them on certain things, but also have a productive relationship, trade with them. We’ll get more influence that way.But those people never seem to win ever since Kennedy was killed. And you have to think there’s kind of a direct link there.Monika Wiesak:Oh, absolutely. Kennedy actually visited Iran in 1951. It wasn’t in my book, but he went in 1951. Then he went on these TV shows afterwards, and he wrote in his diary that the U.S. should work with Mossadegh, that the British were being really unfair, and that the British were exploiting the Iranian people, and that America needed to work with Mossadegh and with the people in Iran. So his view is very opposite to what happened later, which was the coup in 1953 that installed the Shah.Even back then, as a young congressman—he wasn’t even senator yet—he was already going on TV and talking about the importance of supporting local populations and supporting their desires. He just viewed the world in a very different way, and I think he would be absolutely horrified at what’s happening in the Middle East today.And he predicted it, right? Because if you look at his letters and his memos and his meetings, one quote he said in his meetings—which wasn’t in my book—is that he wanted the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, or one of the most important reasons to get the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, was to stop countries like Israel and Egypt from getting nukes. And he’s like, if they get nukes, we’re going to be, quote unquote, “in a b***h of a scenario.”So that’s where we are. That’s exactly where we are 60 years later. I think he would be horrified, but I don’t think he’d be surprised because he felt like this is where it would lead if something wasn’t done to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle, so to speak.Kevin Barrett: Indeed, yeah. And I think he would probably be one of the few mainstream American politicians to very strongly condemn the genocide of Gaza as well. That’s something that you can’t imagine Kennedy presiding over: the United States supporting Israel flattening Gaza and killing tens of thousands of women and children that way.Monika Wiesak: No, because when he was president, he supported Palestinian right of return. Now, he tried to do it in a very fair way in terms of it wasn’t just “everybody go back,” but everybody gets the choice to go back. So he supported the Joseph Johnson plan through the UN, where the idea was that every refugee would get the choice to go back, the choice to be compensated, or the choice to move to another nation.And it was sort of in favor of compensation. Because it was sort of in favor of compensation, they estimated maybe 10% of refugees would choose to go back. But they felt that was a fair way where everyone would get a choice, where it wouldn’t flood Israel with refugees at the same time.But obviously the Joseph Johnson plan ended up falling apart. Israel was very opposed to it. A lot of the Arab nations were opposed to it because they thought it was unfair.Kevin Barrett: And there are many people today arguing that the driving force behind the assassination was probably Israel and its friends in the American establishment, especially the CIA and especially a certain James Jesus Angleton. That debate is still ongoing, but I think the people arguing that the Israeli factor was probably bigger than the Vietnam factor are picking up steam. And to the extent that that’s the case, that certainly would reinforce what you said: that the Middle East would be radically different today if he had lived.Monika Wiesak:Oh, absolutely. I think it’s by far the greatest long-term impact and the greatest short-term impact. And that’s kind of why I put out a Substack article a week or two ago to show the timeline of Kennedy’s policies toward Israel and a timeline of the assassination so people can see how closely those two timelines line up.Kennedy had started some cursory inspections of Dimona in September 1962, but Israel concocted this elaborate ruse to fool inspectors. Kennedy then spoke with Golda Meir on December 27, 1962, and he said, “I want much more thorough and frequent access to Dimona.”So really that whole spring into the summer, into June, Israel kept delaying JFK. They kept coming up with excuse after excuse as to why they couldn’t do inspections. Finally JFK got fed up in the middle of May. He even considered leaking Ben-Gurion’s refusal to the papers.But then Ben-Gurion responded and said, “We can do inspections at the end of the year.” And Kennedy responded and said, “No, the end of the year is not acceptable. I want inspections this summer.” And the next day Ben-Gurion resigned.So to me, it looks like Ben-Gurion’s plan was to stay and delay Kennedy to the end of the year. When Kennedy wasn’t going for that, he had no choice but to resign, as that was the only way left to delay Kennedy. And of course when he resigned, a new administration came into place and they immediately contacted the State Department. They were still writing letters to the U.S. saying, “Don’t worry, these French rumors are false. You’re going to get your inspections before the reactor goes critical.”And of course Kennedy gets assassinated. The reactor goes critical in early January, and no inspections ever happen before it goes critical. There were some inspections Lyndon Johnson did after it went critical, but they’re not at all the inspections that Kennedy wanted.And I think it’s a fair question to ask: because there were also memos speculating where are they getting their uranium from, because they were trying to figure out where they were getting their materials from. So there’s an argument to be made that if those inspections happened, maybe they would have figured out that the uranium came from NUMEC in Pennsylvania. And that could have potentially, at the very least for negligence if for nothing else, implicated Angleton.So I think Angleton had a personal motive to make sure Kennedy doesn’t find out what’s going on at Dimona, where this uranium was coming from, because that has personal impact on him, forget the geopolitical impact. So I think in the immediate term they tremendously benefited from the assassination because whatever was going on there was never uncovered. And if Kennedy had determined that there was some illegal activity going on, he would have gone after that. There’s no doubt. And with Bobby Kennedy as attorney general, there could have been a lot of people in a lot of trouble potentially. But then also in the long term, because they still have the bomb today, and the reason that they’re able to do what they did in Gaza these last few years, I think a big part of the reason is because they have nukes. And when you have nukes, you can get away with a lot more than you would have been able to get away with if you didn’t have nukes. So they’re still benefiting from that crime every single day of every year for the last 60-plus years. And they’ll still be benefiting from it probably 100 years from now, 200 years from now, 300 years from now. As long as they have nuclear weapons, they’ll be benefiting from the Kennedy assassination. Because I think there’s a good chance that JFK would have not just shut down their nuclear program in that moment, but if he had caught them funneling materials from the U.S. and whatnot, he might have permanently shut down their nuclear program and it was never getting off the ground again.And so I think people really have to look at the long-term ramifications. Because when you look at something like Vietnam, yes, it was absolutely horrific. Yes, it would not have happened had Kennedy stayed president. But it’s not happening today. So that was more of a short-term benefit of the assassination. And the other thing is, if you look at the timelines, that assassination planning seems to have activity going on that’s setting up the assassination starting in the spring of ‘63. Kennedy didn’t sign that NSAM to withdraw the first advisors until October ‘63, but the assassination planning is far along by then. So I don’t think signing that NSAM to withdraw the advisors had any impact on the assassination. Again, we’ve already had movements in like March and April that seems to be setting this assassination in motion. So to me, like I’m looking at what was happening in late 1962, early 1963 to set this thing in motion. And that’s sort of what I wanted to emphasize with my timeline is, at least for me, a lot of people view it as Kennedy was just too problematic of a president. You know, he—there’s—it’s just he was going to get assassinated because, to your point, Kevin, he was making too many power segments angry. And I think that’s why they were able to get away with it, whoever did it, because nobody cared for Kennedy. They were all like, “Thank God he’s gone,” I think was the general kind of sense. Kevin Barrett: There was supposedly applause that broke out in the CIA station in South Korea when the news of his assassination broke, which is really kind of astounding and disgusting.Monika Wiesak: Yeah. So I think there were many, many power sectors that were relieved to see him gone. I don’t want to use the word simplistic, but it’s almost like when you mesh together a bunch of motives that you’re not really thinking about timelines and you’re not really thinking about when did this start, what could have triggered it. Whereas for me, timelines are really important, and I think it’s important to look at those policies that did change during that time period that were crucial in November 1963 that couldn’t wait till re-election because Kennedy was about to go into a re-election year.I mentioned in my article that Goldwater was a bigger hawk on Vietnam than LBJ. So if I’m someone that wants the Vietnam War, why not just sabotage his reelection campaign? And I don’t know—again, I don’t know who was behind the assassination. I can’t say anything for certain, but I think people need to take into account: who wanted LBJ in power, who couldn’t wait until Goldwater, how do these timelines line up? And these are all really important questions.And I think we need to get into those details rather than just saying everyone in power hated Kennedy, because then we’ll never get to the bottom of it. Because then it just stays as this vague thing, he killed by this vague entity, rather than, no, he was killed by people with names and faces. And I think we need to figure out who those names and faces were.Kevin Barrett: Right. I recently learned that Edward J. Epstein had created a shadow 9/11 commission after 9/11 and invited Ghislaine Maxwell to join it. And that raised all kinds of alarm bells for me because way back in the day, when I started looking at this, back in the 1970s, when Edward J. Epstein was publishing JFK assassination stuff, including—what was that book of his on Oswald?Monika Wiesak: Legend.Kevin Barrett: It’s called Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald. And in that book, apparently his main source was Angleton, who now everybody suspects is the CIA guy that the Israelis went through to kill Kennedy. Epstein was involved in the suspected Mossad assassination of George De Mohrenschildt to prevent him from testifying at the House Investigations Committee. So the fact that this very suspicious character who seems to be involved in covering up the JFK assassination for Angleton and the Israelis, namely Edward J. Epstein, was inviting Ghislaine Maxwell onto a shadow 9/11 commission, whatever that was—you know, it made me wonder whether there was like a shadow JFK commission too that Epstein had been on—namely people on the inside who are trying to prevent the truth from coming out. And that the same Epstein somehow wound up on the same thing for 9/11, which frankly I think was probably perpetrated by the same people who killed JFK. So that’s a lot of stuff to throw at you, but there it is.Monika Wiesak: Yeah, so I know Epstein wrote a book. I didn’t read his book, but it questioned the official narrative in terms of Oswald being the lone gunman. And I think it questioned the official narrative, so he was considered a skeptic or a Warren Commission critic. But then he used Angleton as his source for the article.And so, you know—and then everybody—I don’t think there’s very much—there’s no doubt that Angleton controlled Oswald’s files. I think everyone’s in agreement in that. I think everyone who studies the assassination views Angleton as a suspicious character. I think he’s the one person that everyone agrees on. Whoever people think the prime culprit was, they all tend to agree that Angleton was central to this thing because he controlled Oswald’s files. He was sort of the architect of the Oswald legend or whatnot, or at least one of the architects.So I think everyone suspects Angleton regardless of their view of the assassination. And the fact that then Epstein used Angleton as a source for his book does make you wonder: was this to drive skeptics in a certain direction? Was this to mislead skeptics and get them spending time on something they shouldn’t be spending time on or looking into things they shouldn’t be looking into rather than focusing on other things?And I do think in a lot of ways not enough focus is given on Kennedy’s policies. And that’s another reason when I wrote America’s Last President and why I didn’t want to even touch on the assassination, because I feel like people feel they can solve the crime by studying Dealey Plaza, and it doesn’t work that way. You have to first really understand the intricacies of Kennedy’s policies and the timings of his policies and when everything was happening.Because sort of what happened to me is that I had read Douglass’s book, JFK and the Unspeakable. And the conclusions in the book made no sense to me at all because it was sort of like: “We want war, we want war, we kill this man, we control the autopsy. If we want, we can say there were multiple shooters—the easiest excuse in the world to say that the Cubans did it. But no, instead we push this lone nut theory. And we do it all because LBJ said so.”So you’re going to kill one president and then just listen to the next who tells you he’s not going to give you what you want? It just made no sense to me—that conclusion of that book made no sense to me. And so I was like, I don’t know what happened, but I know this didn’t happen, like not the way—or at least this hypothesis can’t be correct.I went to study Kennedy’s presidency, and then the other thing I realized right away was, well, wait a minute, this whole story or thesis that he changed is not accurate either. Because I can see here based in the 1940s, 1950s, he’s an anti-colonialist, he’s pro-peace. In his very first State of the Union, he’s talking about we should explore space with the Soviets. This wasn’t in 1963—he’s saying this in January 1961.So I’m realizing, wait, that’s not right either. And so that’s what made me think this can only be solved if people really, really study his policies, really understand them, because his policies were incredibly consistent. He was always pro-peace. He was always anti-colonialism. He was never working for the oligarchs. He didn’t go through this massive transformation during his presidency.I mean, obviously the Cuban Missile Crisis impacted him as a human being. How could it not? So I’m not trying to underscore the fact that he wasn’t emotionally impacted by that event, because I think he was. But his views didn’t change. It maybe reinforced the views he already had.So I just feel like we really need to focus on Kennedy’s policies, on the timelines of those policies, and also what was immediately urgent, what was long-term urgent, and things like that, and not oversimplify it because I feel people oversimplify it too much as “Kennedy was a good guy, he was working for the people, so he got killed.” And while I agree that that’s true, it keeps you from really studying the assassination in any depth because you oversimplify it.You oversimplify it when you say, “Oh, the military-industrial complex hated JFK.” But JFK increased military spending. So why is some war profiteer or military contractor going to kill someone who’s increasing their profits? As a percentage of GDP, military spending back then was much higher than it is today.Kevin Barrett: Until Trump’s increase kicks in.Monika Wiesak: Yeah. Yes, I should say that. Yeah. But it stayed stable between JFK and LBJ. And the reason Kennedy was a big military spender is not because he wanted to go to war, but he wanted to diversify the defense establishment. So he was horrified—absolutely horrified—by the fact that his military were like, “Well, if we get into any little scuffle with the Soviets, just drop your nukes.” And that to him was absolutely horrifying. He’s like, “I don’t want my first response to a small scuffle to be to drop a nuke. So I want to build a really diversified military, you know, where I’ve got lots of options.” And at that time there was also a real risk of war with the Soviets. I mean, war was a very real possibility at that time. And that’s another reason he wanted a strong military: He felt that that would discourage the Soviets from being aggressive…so that the Soviets feel like, “You know what? It’s not worth being in this arms race with the US. We should just agree to some sort of disarmament, and that’s going to be best for both parties.” And that was Kennedy’s view.And if you listen to his meetings or in phone calls, he says himself, “The only reason I was able to get a nuclear test ban ratified is because I had increased military spending, because the Senate would have never, ever ratified my treaty if I hadn’t increased military spending.”And so people get so confused about JFK, and it’s easy to say, “Oh, he changed.” But he didn’t change. He always was a big military spender because he wanted to diversify the defense establishment, because he wanted to avoid war, and because he wanted to negotiate true multilateral nuclear disarmament. And he felt the only way to do that is to have a strong negotiating position.And so I think there’s a lot of misunderstandings about what Kennedy’s goals were and what he was doing. But I didn’t see any change. That’s just from studying Kennedy’s presidency.Kevin Barrett: I suspected that he may have changed in a certain way based on the Bay of Pigs experience when he first came into office and he was greeted with this disaster in the making when they lied to him and told him, “Oh, just send this handful of CIA-backed Cuban exiles into Cuba and the people will rise up and overthrow the government. Everybody will live happily ever after.” And that was a total lie. The CIA knew that this was just a trick to get it going so then they would send in the military.I think that did maybe change him a bit in terms of waking him up to some of the realities of power, and how some of his naive assumptions that these people had good intentions back when he was a so-called 50s Cold Warrior were not true. So I think that was a change to some extent, wasn’t it?Monika Wiesak: Yes. No, that’s an excellent point. When I say he didn’t change, I meant his ideals or his goals. But I think he absolutely became smarter. And so I think what you said is very crucial and very important and very accurate, is that he did learn from the Bay of Pigs. He learned not to trust his advisors. He learned how manipulative the national security state can be and how he was manipulated into this event.And he blamed himself for it. He took responsibility. He didn’t blame anyone else for it. So he absolutely grew. He absolutely became smarter, became more savvy. So when I say he didn’t change, I don’t want to make it sound like he didn’t improve because he did grow and he did improve and he did become more savvy. It was more his ideals, his overall world vision, that didn’t change, if that makes sense.Kevin Barrett: Exactly. He didn’t suddenly go from being a Cold Warrior to a hippie peacenik because he took LSD.Monika Wiesak: Yeah.Kevin Barrett: But yeah, so there’s an interesting possible parallel here between Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs and then Trump in this attack on Iran—although in a sense they’re total opposite characters—because in both cases the presidents were lied into a ridiculous doomed attack. Kennedy was told that the Cuban people would support these exiles, and Trump was told the Iranian people will just love it if we murder their leaders and blow up their schoolgirls.So you think that that parallel—the scary thing about that parallel to me, Monika, is that the CIA, when they lied to Kennedy, what did they think would happen? Well, they were planning to invade and take over Cuba.How about the Israelis? What did they really think would happen? Were they really stupid enough to believe that this so-called decapitation attack would somehow regime-change Iran into being pro-Israel and pro-America? Or another puppet government would somehow be acceptable to the Iranians? I can’t believe that they’re that stupid.So I’m concerned that just as the CIA wanted the Bay of Pigs provocation to trigger a full-scale invasion, Israel knew the first phase would fail and wanted something much bigger that they hoped would follow.Monika Wiesak: And they figured as soon as it failed, Kennedy being a new president would get scared of this big failure and would send in the military to fix it, right? That was their hope. Their hope was to con JFK into sending the military into Cuba.And of course JFK didn’t fall for the—well, he fell for part of the con, although I guess in his defense, you know, this was all set up before his presidency and he didn’t know what to do with those exiles because those exiles had to leave. I think they were in Guatemala. You know, they couldn’t stay there. They would either have to come to the US and be angry and frustrated because they were already promised to return to the island. So he had to do something. Like doing nothing was not an option for Kennedy.But nevertheless, I think he wouldn’t have done that if he knew that that’s how it was going to go. And so he did get conned, you know, JFK. And I think the other thing is all of his advisors were telling him to do it.Kevin Barrett: With Trump, Hegseth was the only one who was really on board and the rest were all sort of, you know, “Well, that sounds a little dubious.” Or, you know, Vance supposedly was the only one who said it’s really not a good idea, but even he didn’t say it’s really not a good idea as he should have.Yeah, so I think there’s definitely parallels, but there’s some differences between the two situations as well…how about Trump being an anti-JFK?Monika Wiesak: Oh, absolutely. Because JFK, like even though everyone told him to do it, he was like, “It’s my fault. It’s 100% my fault. Like, you know, I’m the president. I should have made a better decision. I should have analyzed this better. I should have pushed back against my advisors. It’s not the advisors’ job to govern this country. It’s my job. So hence, it’s my fault.”You know, like he said, “Victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan.” And he’s like, “Well, you know, I have to take full responsibility for this.”I don’t think Trump would ever admit to any mistake in his life. You know what I mean? He’s always bragging about how great he is, how wonderful he is, how he’s the most amazing president and the most amazing leader.Kevin Barrett: He knows more about anything than everybody.Monika Wiesak: Yeah. So I don’t think he’ll ever admit to a mistake. I don’t think he’ll ever admit that he was conned. I think he’s always going to try to make it sound rosy and as though everything is going according to how he planned. So they’re very, very different character-wise, JFK and Trump.Kevin Barrett: And what does it say about the American people, that the American people actually appreciated Kennedy taking the blame for the Bay of Pigs and his poll ratings went up in the aftermath of that, which really pissed off people like Allen Dulles and the CIA guys, especially when Kennedy then fired them. So the American people were actually kind of appreciating Kennedy’s style at that time.Monika Wiesak: Oh, absolutely. Because we just had real leadership back then. We had someone who cared about people, who cared about doing a good job, who was very committed to his job, who was very hardworking, who had great character, and who was very honest. And the other thing that I sort of put a chapter in America’s Last President about it is when Kennedy was president, 80% of the public trusted the government. Today, about 20% of the public trust the government.Kevin Barrett: Indeed. Can you imagine it turning around? Is there any possibility that somebody with a kind of JFK approach would have any traction in today’s world?Monika Wiesak: I think it would be extremely, extremely difficult. I think one of the reasons Kennedy was able to slip through is because he came from a very wealthy family. So he campaigned for years even before he officially announced he was running for president. He would fly every weekend with Ted Sorensen often to all these small towns across America for the couple years before he announced he was running for the presidency. He was unofficially campaigning for a long time in a very grassroots way. He had the money to do that. He had the money to travel, to visit people.And I think because he was so wealthy, he was not as dependent on other donors. He didn’t feel as beholden to these big money donors as maybe other politicians feel beholden to them and dependent upon them. And he also had a lot of unique life experiences because he suffered a lot during his life. He had horrible back pain. He almost died multiple times in his life. He was very sickly at times in his life. You know, as I said, his life was saved by indigenous islanders.So he had this very unique experience where he understood struggle and pain, but yet he came from this ultra-wealthy family. And so it was kind of like lightning in a bottle, so to speak. And I think sort of these things allowed him to kind of sneak through.And television was just becoming a thing then. And he was, I think, very TV-savvy. And, you know, I think he gave a very good appearance. And so I think that helped him a lot with TV being a new medium at that time.So I think today would be extremely difficult. It would have to be someone wealthy. I don’t think someone without a lot of wealth would stand a chance because it costs so much money to run. And so you need someone who’s financially independent enough to do it and who’s willing to put their money on the line, so to speak, and who’s willing to do it over the long term like Kennedy campaigned over years.Because you’re not getting necessarily the media support, so you have to do it yourself, which with social media today, you know, it might be easier for someone to get out there and reach a large audience.And so I think it’s possible, but unfortunately I think it would have to be someone very wealthy who kind of, for whatever reasons, disagreed with parts of the establishment and sort of, you know, get in there.But then the problem becomes what’s going to prevent that person from being assassinated? You know, if it happened in 1963, what’s to say it can’t happen again? And I think that’s why it’s really important to have a truth and reconciliation about Kennedy, not only because America has to heal from what happened—and I don’t think America can heal until the truth about that assassination comes out.Kevin Barrett: Indeed. And if that does happen, and if the truth ever comes out, and it does turn out the way we suspect it might, which is with a major role for the state of Israel, political consequences of that would be pretty powerful, wouldn’t it?Monika Wiesak: Yes. No, absolutely. I mean, I think like whatever the truth is, I know it’s not going to be pretty, but it has to come out. You can’t heal until you have the truth. You have to start with that regardless of how ugly it is.Kevin Barrett: I agree. And I think maybe the truth could clear the space for the possibility of these kinds of public-spirited idealists getting back into politics and displacing the increasingly unfortunate cretins that we’ve had over most of my lifetime.Well, thank you, Monika Wiesak Wazick. It’s been a good hour of conversation. I appreciate your great work. I look forward to talking with you again about a couple of your other books as well.Monika Wiesak: Thank you.Kevin Barrett: Okay, thank you. And where can people find your book?Monika Wiesak: Oh, they can buy it on Amazon, ThriftBooks, Barnes & Noble. There’s also an audio version. I self-recorded the audio, so it’s not professional. But if you can handle my voice, you can check that out as well.Kevin Barrett: Oh, cool.Monika Wiesak: And yeah, so you can find it at all the major outlets.Kevin Barrett: Okay. America’s Last President: What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy. Highly recommended. Thank you, Monika Wiesak. God bless.Monika Wiesak: See you down the road, inshallah.Kevin Barrett: Thank you. Bye.Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkExcerpt:Press TV: It was the US that started this aggression on Iran. It was the US that then had to propose a ceasefire. It was also the US that then had to extend unilaterally the ceasefire. Then it was also the US that had to call off its so-called Project Freedom. And most recently it was US destroyers that had to flee as the Iranian army, as the Iranian navy targeted them when they were targeting Iranian tankers. Iran has said that another targeting of Iranian tankers and they would target American centers in the region and also American tankers.So the U.S. did everything it could. We’re talking about decades of sanctions. We’re talking about all kinds of coup attempts, bloody coup attempts, especially more recently when more than 3,400 Iranians were murdered as a result of U.S.-Israeli agents on the ground hijacking peaceful protests, turning it into riots. And then, of course, we had war imposed on Iran.So Iran has been the victor in this battle. Iran was the one who was able to push back the western enemy, the American enemy, and so there is no reason for Iran to make any concessions, especially because when Iran was bombed a second time, Iran was negotiating, was talking about making concessions on its nuclear program, not to an international body, not to the IAEA.And Iran had of course warned the U.S. that another aggression on Iran and you will be faced with all kinds of response, from extreme retaliation, from a regional war to a new management office, which has shut out all American warships and Israeli warships as well.This is what the U.S. brought upon itself. Now that they have exhausted all their cards, they have exhausted all their options, and now that their inflation jumped to 3.8 percent, which is the highest. And so it will act as such and it will demand basically what is the rights of the Iranian nation.Kevin Barrett: Yes, this has been a really amazing period to be witnessing, especially from my perspective, because I got interested in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the revolution when I was young, but I didn’t become a specialist or expert in it. I started really paying attention about 15 years ago.And I’ve really grown to appreciate the genius of Iran’s Islamic Republican leadership over the decades in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of this ongoing attempt to destroy it and to regime change Iran and to turn Iran back into a U.S.-Zionist client puppet state like it was under the Shah.This war, I think, has permanently essentially decided the conflict in favor of Iran, because Trump did what Brzezinski warned against 15 years ago, which is he said “we the Americans should not follow Israel into a war on Iran like a stupid mule.”Today Trump is stupider than a mule. This is completely backfiring against all American geostrategic interests. And it has essentially given Iran the chance to step up and flex its muscles and show that it actually has essentially permanent control over the Strait of Hormuz and the massive resources that flow through it, which is the equivalent of a nuclear weapon. People have always asked themselves why Iran does not want nuclear weapons. It has a religious prohibition. But it also doesn’t need one, because it has the equivalent.If Trump wanted an off-ramp, he actually had one after the Pakistan negotiations. All he had to do was accept the ceasefire and make it a real ceasefire. Instead, he went and did this so-called blockade of the blockade, which is doubly stupid because the problem, from the American point of view, is the fact that products are blocked. And so he just made them even more blocked. And that was another colossal blunder, almost as big as his original colossal blunder of getting into this war in the first place.And so now China has absolutely no reason to even try to force Iran to do what Trump tells them to do. Why would China do that? China is actually weathering this situation better than America and its allies. They have a strategic reserve. They have diversified their energy. They have a lot of coal. They have all sorts of diverse energy supply chains, so they don’t need to worry themselves the way that the Americans and all of their allies, including their supposed anti-China allies in the region like Japan, and they hope Taiwan, South Korea, and so on.Press TV: The global energy crisis, Dr. Barrett, the IEA, the International Energy Agency, said it is the worst energy crisis ever, unprecedented in history and about to get worse. How does this equate, from your perspective, to leverage that the U.S. president has or lack of moving forward or actually pressed into coming up with a definitive solution to this conflict? Or does he not care, simply?Kevin Barrett: And Russia, China, and Iran, America’s adversaries, are all coming out of this much, much stronger. Russia is selling its energy for a much higher price. The sanctions have had to be dropped…. China has a huge strategic reserve and a diversified energy supply. And then Iran, as we’ve seen, has now got effective de facto permanent control of the Strait of Hormuz, taking it to a whole new level in the geopolitical world.So Trump has got himself in a terrible fix and he lost his last chance for a graceful exit after the Pakistan negotiations. And now I think he’s going to learn in China that he’s going to be headed for an ungraceful exit.Press TV: Kevin, for years the Israelis, and you mentioned them, so I want to bring it up now, and the impact this has had on regional resistance. They’ve been assassinating Palestinian and Lebanese resistance leaders and figures and commanders that they think are obstacles to Israel’s agenda for the region. And now the U.S. has joined Israel’s endeavor. Obviously, you alluded to that.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I think they made a huge miscalculation based on their arrogance. They imagine that if anybody threatened them the way that, let’s say, the resistance leaders are threatened, the way Iran’s leaders are threatened and so many have been assassinated, the way the Hezbollah leaders are threatened and assassinated, the way the Hamas leaders are threatened and assassinated, the Islamic Jihad leaders and so on, that they will have to capitulate because people like Trump and the people around him, the Western decision makers, are basically cowards.But that’s not the way the resistance works. The resistance is made up of people who are spiritual, moral and have principles and are willing to risk and sacrifice their lives for what they believe in, including the liberation of their lands and the preservation of their dignity, their religion and their culture.And this is something that’s incomprehensible apparently to a major segment of the Western leadership. They imagine that by wreaking havoc with terror attacks on resistance forces and leadership they can somehow terrorize the resistance into giving up. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News linkOn October 26, 1972, Henry Kissinger momentously announced: “Peace is at hand.” According to Kissinger, North Vietnam and their Vietcong allies were about to see the light, lay down their weapons, and come to terms with the US and its South Vietnamese vassal.Kissinger’s announcement made screaming front page headlines. It electrified the country, coming as it did seven years after US involvement in Vietnam had become a quagmire, and five years after American public opinion had turned decisively against the war. The American people were sick of the war, and Kissinger’s bombshell promised not just peace, but “peace with honor.”Kissinger stunned the world with his peace announcement just twelve days before his boss, President Richard Nixon, sought re-election against antiwar challenger George McGovern. Though McGovern’s campaign had been hobbled not only by its own mistakes, but also by a long list of “dirty tricks” by pro-Nixon covert operations, Nixon’s campaign still faced the problem of the election potentially becoming a referendum on the war, which conceivably could allow McGovern to snatch victory from the jaws of looming defeat.McGovern’s last-ditch hope was dashed by Kissinger’s “peace is at hand” bombshell. The media ate it up, and most Americans bought into Kissinger’s claim that the war was effectively over. Nixon won reelection in a landslide. Less than two months after Kissinger’s peace proclamation, the Nixon administration launched the Christmas carpet bombing of North Vietnam, dropping 20,000 tons of ordnance and killing thousands of civilians. Peace, least of all “with honor,” was apparently not quite at hand. In January 1973, Kissinger referenced his “peace is at hand” remark of a few months earlier at a news conference, causing an eruption of cynical laughter among the assembled reporters. The real end of the war came more than two years later, on April 30, 1975, when Saigon finally fell. It was an abject US defeat, with no “honor” whatsoever. Indeed, the dishonor only mounted as Nixon, Kissinger, and their successors refused to pay Vietnam the promised war reparations, leading the Vietnamese to covertly hold on to about half of the US servicemen they had captured, virtually all of whom suffered and died in atrocious conditions as political and media elites averted their collective gaze.Today, US president Donald Trump is waging an even more unpopular war, this time against Iran. Like Kissinger on the eve of the 1972 elections, Trump seeks political gain via bogus “peace is at hand” announcements. But Trump’s gains, unlike Nixon’s and Kissinger’s, may be (criminally) financial as well as political.Last Wednesday, the Kobeissi Letter reported:BREAKING: According to our analysis, ~$920 million worth of crude oil shorts were taken 70 minutes before an Axios report claimed the US and Iran were near a "14-point" deal to end the war.At 3:40 AM ET today, nearly 10,000 contracts worth of crude oil shorts were taken without any major news.This is equivalent to ~$920 million in notional value, an unusually large trade for 3:40 AM ET.At 4:50 AM ET, just 70 minutes later, Axios reported that the US is "close" to a "memorandum of understanding" to end the Iran War.By 7:00 AM ET, oil prices had fallen over -12% with these crude oil shorts gaining approximately +$125 million.Minutes later, Iran launched the "Persian Gulf Strait Authority" and oil prices surged +8%.What just happened?Mainstream and quasi-alternative media, for once, picked up the story. Business Insider reported that “Online sleuths are raising more red flags around suspiciously timed Iran-war oil trades.” Common Dreams noted the “Epic Insider Trading.” The Daily Beast wryly noted that “Trump’s DOJ Is Investigating.” (Just like foxes are investigating alleged crimes at the henhouse.)What galled many observers wasn’t just the brazen scope of the enormous insider bet that oil prices would briefly fall, but the maddening fact that this has been happening over and over again: Trump hysterically barks out bloodcurdling threats, oil prices rise, Trump says peace is at hand a few minutes or hours after insiders bet on falling prices, prices fall, insiders collect jackpot, Iran denies Trump’s BS claims, prices rise again, Trump utters new bloodcurdling threats, rinse-and-repeat.The BBC was already onto it two weeks ago, a week before the latest billion-dollar bet:According to the Daily Beast:At least four traders made a combined $2.6 billion in the oil market by wagering that oil prices would drop shortly before Trump made major moves, according to trade data from the London Stock Exchange Group shared with ABC News.The suspected insider trades happened on March 23, April 7, April 16, April 21, and again last Wednesday, May 6. All came on the eve of highly dubious “peace” announcements. The SEC is supposed to be investigating these and other examples of apparent insider trading, a crime that can bring up to 20 years in federal prison. But according to Senator Elizabeth Warren of the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: “The SEC’s job is to make sure our markets are fair and honest. But nearly a year into running the agency, Chair (Paul) Atkins is unleashing a Golden Age of Fraud…the Trump SEC has gutted oversight and enforcement tools, even proposing to dismantle the database that helps the SEC catch insider trading, market manipulation, and other corporate crime.” Atkins, a Trump crime family crony, apparently sees his job as running interference for the Trumps’ accumulation of double-digit billions in personal enrichment via various criminal schemes.Trump, who was supposedly elected to “drain the swamp,” has turned out to be the swampiest president in all of history. And though I’m not surprised—back in 2015 I was calling out Trump as a Kosher Nostra frontman initiated into organized crime (and depraved sexual practices involving political blackmail) by his mentor Roy Cohn from 1973 through 1986—it seems that a fair number of MAGA true believers are only now beginning to wake up and notice what kind of monster they voted for. Shameless ChutzpahWhat Trump learned from Roy Cohn can be summed up in two words: shameless chutzpah. While some may call that a pleonastic pleonasm (i.e. a repetitious redundancy), since chutzpah is by definition shameless, we Arabic speakers know that seemingly unnecessary repetition can be used for emphasis and intensification. Trump’s chutzpah takes shamelessness to the next level.Chutzpah is a quintessentially Jewish thing. It’s a Yiddish word describing an attitude that is not only common in Jewish culture, but seen as more of a good thing than a bad thing. The self-made orphan with the gall to throw himself on the mercy of the court is not merely a target of ridicule; he is also admirable, especially if he somehow gets away with it. Jews teach their children about the positive side of chutzpah:Roy Cohn, a mob lawyer and mob lieutenant (maybe even a colonel or general) perfectly embodied chutzpah. He rarely bothered to prepare for his court cases, because he always won them when his opponents learned that they were up against the mob and dropped out. Trump was Cohn’s goy boy toy. It’s actually surprising that Cohn, who died of AIDS (which may actually be undiagnosed syphilis more often than not) never gave Trump the pox. Or did he? In this week’s False Flag Weekly News (watch it above) Dr. E. Michael Jones opines that Trump is indeed suffering the the symptoms of advancing syphilis, which can cause mood swings, memory loss, impaired judgment, confusion, delusions, mania, delirium, and sudden outbreaks of socially-inappropriate anger, hostility, and aggression. Take Trump’s Easter Sunday tweet:Following that notorious tweet, Pope Leo uttered a saccharine pro-peace bromide or two, which triggered Trump, who once again lost all self-control and began tweeting out politically ill-advised attacks on the Pontiff, compounding the damage by posting a picture of himself as “Dr. Jesus” a week after Easter.In Jewish culture, and among boldly amoral people in general, chutzpah is only good when you can get away with it. The self-made orphan who somehow convinces the naive goy judge to release him—perhaps by insisting that he is not just an orphan but a Holocaust survivor to boot, and that holding him responsible for his crime would be antisemitic—is exemplary; whereas a less talented or less lucky parricide, whose excuse is rejected and who is sentenced to hang for murdering his parents, becomes a cautionary tale and a figure of fun.Trump’s increasing recklessness, whether caused by syphilis, advancing age, or too many diet cokes, is causing him to run the risk of getting caught. Did he really think he could get away with his lame attempt to regime-change Iran? Does he imagine his insanely erratic tweets will somehow strengthen his bargaining position and burnish his reputation? Does Don Jr. or Jared or whoever is making the insider bets really think they’ll escape scot-free in perpetuity?The Trump regime’s out-of-control chutzpah, like that of the parricide orphan pleading with the judge for mercy, is begging for comeuppance. And Iran seems poised to deal it out with a vengeance.Video link This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkThe September 11 2001 attack on the US set off a series of wars that killed millions of people. 9/11 led directly to the ongoing genocides of Gaza and South Lebanon and the disastrous Israeli-US attack on Iran. Since an ever-growing segment of the population realizes that the Western media and political elites are lying outrageously about these events, it may be time to revisit the “the most successful and most perverse publicity stunt in the history of public relations” (as National Medal of Science winner Lynn Margulis called 9/11).According to the 9/11 Commission, radical Muslim hijackers successfully commandeered four aircraft on September 11, 2001 and flew three of them into buildings, two of which miraculously imploded in apparent controlled demolitions officially blamed on plane crashes and fires. Among the many problems with that story: The flight paths of the three planes, reconstructed from FAA radar data and videos, is radically inconsistent with what human hijackers would and could have done. Instead, it overwhelmingly suggests that the planes were under automated control.Those conclusions, apparent in broad outline to researchers 20 years ago, have been strongly reinforced by the new study “Flight simulator study points to automated control of 9/11 flights” just released by the International Center for 9/11 Justice. In this episode of the Truth Jihad podcast we discuss the study with its author, Dr. Piers Robinson. Dr. Robinson is “a political scientist and currently a co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, co-editor of Propaganda in Focus, and is Research Director and board member of the International Center for 9/11 Justice as well as co-editor of its flagship Journal of 9/11 Studies. He is also a member of Berlin Group21 and PANDA, convenor of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, and associated researcher with the Working Group on Propaganda and the 9/11 Global ‘War on Terror’. He has served on the boards of several academic journals.”\—Excerpt:Kevin Barrett: …And of course, this is an interesting and somewhat controversial topic because it’s not absolutely clear how the perpetrators managed to create the illusion of hijackers seizing control of planes and crashing them into buildings. Piers Robinson: Well, as you set out in your introduction, I work for International Center for 9/11 Justice now. I joined them two or three years back as part of my work on propaganda and deception. I think you’re familiar with my work on Syria and the OPCW. And when I joined the organization, we were very interested in trying to advance our understanding of the 9/11 events and build upon, as you pointed out, the very solid basis of evidence we have regarding the controlled demolition of the buildings in New York. And to try to expand our understanding into different aspects of this operation, the aviation side of things, for example. And so really that’s where the initial idea came from. We thought that there’s a lot of debate out there. We were initially working with some commercial pilots and we were trying to work through and obtain access to a simulator in order to insert them into this simulator and get them to carry out some of the maneuvers which we saw on 9/11.And we made sure that we had a spread of pilots. Initially we had high-experienced pilots involved, three commercial pilots, two of whom were former military pilots, basically military fast-jet pilots. And then we had a group of lower-experienced pilots, private pilot license, who were closer to the kind of experience levels of the alleged hijackers on 9/11. So we had a good spread of expertise and we ran through the study in two stages.Let’s just run through what we got the pilots to do. First of all, we were very interested in what was reported to be UA175, the aircraft which hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Now this is derived from NTSB radar data tracks as well as visual analysis of the flight route. What happens with the plane which hit the South Tower is that the plane comes in and it’s offset from the South Tower. You see this white line here going over City Hall. The plane at this point was heading towards City Hall and then (banked sharply towards the WTC). So we asked the pilots to try to replicate this maneuver.We also looked at the Pentagon route, and this is from the NTSB report on the aircraft which purportedly flew into the Pentagon. At this point here, the plane is actually heading directly towards the Pentagon, and then it starts to turn off to the right, and then it enters this 330-degree descending turn to line up with the Pentagon.And we also did this for the South Tower route. We placed them here over the starting point, probably about three minutes out from the South Tower, and we just said fly as you would in order to try to hit the South Tower….Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News linkOn April 23, the 410th death anniversary of William “All the World’s a Stage” Shakespeare (and his trusty Hispanic sidekick Cervantes) CNN published a thought piece entitled “How Would an Assassination Attempt Be Staged?” Two days later, on April 25, somebody staged yet another Trump assassination attempt, this time at the White House Correspondents Dinner at the Washington, DC Hilton. According to the official narrative, the Hilton shooting was staged by a lone producer, director, casting director, lead actor, and stuntman (it was a dangerous scene) named Cole Tomas Allen. We are told, and video seems to confirm, that Allen descended a back stairway from his hotel room, sprinted past a security checkpoint, fired a shot which struck a Secret Service officer’s bulletproof vest, evaded return fire, tripped on a magnetometer box and fell to the ground, and was jumped on by cops, never having gained access to the actual ballroom where the event was taking place. Allen left a brief manifesto calling himself a “friendly federal assassin” who was “no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”Surrounding the event were some odd coincidences. As I wrote the morning after the shooting:Trump’s press secretary, Karoline “Machine Gun Lips” Leavitt, predicted last night’s shooting two hours before it happened: “There will be some shots fired tonight!”…Fox News reporter Aishah Hasine was in the midst of describing Leavitt’s husband Nicholas Riccio half-bragging half-warning her of what was about to go down, when suddenly and for no apparent reason (beyond the obvious one) Fox cut off the feed...Weird Israeli connections also surfaced, as is par for the course with these kinds of events, including:The patsy’s social media profile featuring a picture of him wearing an IDF sweatshirt; the patsy’s name being allegedly researched in Israel less than 24 hours before the attack; and the shooting erupting at the exact moment that an Israeli magician was terrifying Melania by exposing private information she had thought was secret.If powerful insiders staged the event, perhaps using Allen as a mind-controlled patsy, what might have been their motive or motives? Social media users argued that the shooting greased the skids for Trump’s secure White House ballroom, which had been facing legal and political challenges. The Guardian noted: “Trump’s quick pivot to claiming that the shooting incident confirms the need for a more secure ballroom at the White House, and rightwing pundits’ near-uniformity in messaging along the same lines in the immediate response, heightened the conspiracy framing.” The Israeli connections suggested another possible motive: reminding Trump just who were the “magicians” who could stage assassination events, and who held terrifying secrets that could ruin his and Melania’s lives. The Guardian reported what many believe: “Israel is blackmailing him for untold reasons, perhaps related to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and dragging the US into war in Iran.”The Guardian’s phrasing subtly injects confusion where none is necessary. Blackmailing Trump for untold reasons? Back when it was Russia being accused of blackmailing and controlling Trump, everyone knew the reasons why a foreign state would want to blackmail and control a US president. Is the Guardian pretending that it can’t even imagine why Israel would want to blackmail Trump? Unless, of course, they were using untold in the sense of “a quantity so huge that it cannot be measured, counted, or fully described.” Could the author, Rachel Leingang, be hinting at the obvious fact that Israel would have countless reasons to want to control the US president? Did she sneak that one past her editors? Perhaps those “untold’ reasons, Leingang tells us, might be “related to the Jeffrey Epstein files, and dragging the US into war in Iran.” Is Leingang pretending to be too stupid to understand what she is saying, in a clumsy effort to avoid responsibility for unambiguously and explicitly conveying what everyone knows or strongly suspects to be true? The moral: If you write for mainstream media, never offer a clear, straightforward summary of what “conspiracy theorists” believe, because it might sound reasonable and convincing. Instead, muck it up a bit, add some confusion, and give the reader the impression that it’s the “conspiracy theorists” who are confused.CNN’s “How Would an Assassination Attempt Be Staged?”, published 48 hours before the latest shooting, exhibits a similar technique of seemingly deliberate obfuscation. Noting that the hashtag #staged has been picking up momentum, reflecting ever-growing skepticism about the July 13, 2024 “Trump shooting” in Butler, Pennsylvania, the author, Harmeet Kaur, offers an overly complicated mishmash of reasons why staging a political PR event would be…overly complicated. And that, of course, is why nobody would ever do such a thing.Kaur begins by pretending that she doesn’t understand what the term staged could possibly mean in the context of a political PR stunt. After a detour through the etymology and philology of the term staged (“from the Old French ‘estage,’ meaning ‘dwelling,’ and its verb form ‘estager,’ meaning ‘to stay somewhere.’ ‘Estage’ is also related to the Latin ‘stagium’”) Kaur notes that by the 1930s staged was being used to describe faked crime scenes. Such doings, she suggests, are rare and exotic. The plain, obvious fact that almost any serious crime, committed by criminals with above-room-temperature IQs, will involve “staged” presentations of evidence and/or the lack thereof, including such simple “staging” as wiping away fingerprints or wearing ski masks, apparently doesn’t register with her.Nor does Kaur note that a certain ethnoreligious group, whose genocidal crime headquarters, I mean “state,” is the number one suspect in the Butler and Charlie Kirk shootings as well as countless other state crimes against democracy, has a well-documented history of staging crimes for political gain. As you watch the following half-hour video compilation of mainstream media reports of Jews hoaxing “antisemitic” attacks on themselves, keep two things in mind: 1) This is just the tip of an enormous iceberg; and 2) That iceberg of thousands of similar cases represents just the dumb and/or unlucky ones who got caught.Rumble linkThe US clearance rate for ordinary crimes, mostly committed by impulsive, none-too-bright criminals, is less than 45% for violent crimes and less than 15% for property crimes. Miscreants who plot their crimes carefully—as high-level political criminals do—are obviously going to get away with the vast majority of their misdeeds, even before we factor in the likelihood that they have corrupted law enforcement and the media. What is surprising about the Butler, Pennsylvania “Trump shooting” is not that they managed to pull off such a complex and difficult operation, but that they did it so casually and clumsily, not even bothering to create even the slightest wound on Trump’s ear. Roughly two and a half hours after he was taken off the rally stage, Trump says in a Truth Social statement, “I was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear. I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin. Much bleeding took place…” Yet not one shred of convincing evidence, not least of all the extensive medical evidence that would exist had Trump actually taken a bullet to the ear, supports the claim that Trump’s ear was wounded in any way. Nor does he appear to have suffered the hearing damage that might have been expected.Whoever was in charge of the Secret Service detail must have known that Trump was in no danger. Less than a minute after the volley of shots, Trump was allowed to stand up and shake his fist in front of the flag in an obviously pre-planned photo op. Apologists for the Secret Service conspirators claim that the determination “shooter is down” reassured them that it was perfectly okay to allow Trump to stand up and expose himself to more potential bullets. But had the event been authentic, how could they have possibly known that there was only one shooter? Kaur’s CNN article avoids even entertaining such questions. Like Leingang’s Guardian article on the Hilton shooting, it offers an ad hominem argument against the “conspiracy theorist” by representing him as a deliberately discombobulated straw man, whose supposed incoherent, confusing arguments are actually CNN’s own deliberately distorted rendering.Kaur hauls out Spencer Parsons, “an associate professor of media production at Northwestern University and an independent filmmaker who has staged shooting scenes,” to claim that staging the Butler “Trump shooting” scene would be so difficult as to be essentially impossible. Parsons claims that a “staged shooting scene” requires vast numbers of people: “the director, camera operators, camera technicians, lighting technicians, sound engineers, special effects coordinators, safety coordinators and so on.” Talk about misdirection! Why would ANY such people be necessary for a high-level criminal operation involving a deceptive shooting?! Were camera, lighting, sound, special effects, and safety technicians necessary when hypnotized patsy Sirhan Sirhan fired a volley of random shots, distracting onlookers while the professional killer pressed a revolver to the back of Robert F. Kennedy’s head and pulled the trigger, leaving powder burns on his skull?Kaur tell us that setting up a patsy to take the blame for a shooting is impossibly complicated:Then there’s the issue of the fake assassin himself. The task would require an extraordinarily skilled marksman, someone who could aim close enough to the candidate’s head to make it look like he’d intended to hit him without actually hitting him. (Acquaintances of the gunman who tried to shoot Trump told reporters that he was rejected from his high school’s rifle club because he was such a bad shot.)And to make the situation seem believable, the Secret Service would have to kill the designated shooter after he opened fire, an outcome the person in the gun-wielding role either wouldn’t anticipate or would have to be willing to accept.Kaur again sets up a preposterous straw man: A conspiracy theorist stupid enough to think Thomas Crooks fired shots that came anywhere near Trump’s head, and that Crooks was a conscious, witting, fully-informed participant. But nobody thinks that! What skeptics actually think is that Crooks, like most other patsies going back to Sirhan, was probably mind-controlled. (For an introductory discussion including a demonstration of MK-Ultra style hypnotic mind-control, check out Jesse Ventura’s “Mind-Controlled Assassins and Programmed Killers.”) Crooks, like Oswald, was “just a patsy” who didn’t shoot anyone. The actual shooting, which did not and could not have caused a bullet to come anywhere near Trump’s head, but which likely did strike three onlookers, killing one of them, was fired from the building behind and to the left of the one that hypnotized patsy Crooks had climbed onto. For details, check out my interview with filmmaker John Hankey, and watch his film below.Kaur then implies that it would have been too difficult or impossible for Trump to use a squib to create the fake blood he smeared on his face like warpaint for the photo op:The blood would be another consideration, Parsons says. Film crews simulate gunshot wounds via squibs, small explosive devices that spout fake blood when detonated — some conspiracy theories surrounding Trump’s assassination attempt claimed that he used a squib because the blood on his face was supposedly only seen after he raised his hand to his cheek, though researcher Katherine FitzGerald noted at the time that the first appearance of blood was not clear from the videos.Another technique for staging bloodshed might involve the candidate superficially wounding himself with a small razor blade, like professional wrestlers do, but that also presents challenges…Wait a minute! What does Kaur mean, also presents challenges?! The first paragraph quoted above fails to present the slightest argument or evidence that Trump or a Secret Service confederate would have faced the slightest “challenge” in using a squib to produce the fake blood. The word also is a lie. Kaur hopes the careless reader will gloss over it.Having refuted nothing while flailing about with straw men, Kaur concludes:Given all of this, Parsons finds the idea that an assassination attempt of this scale could be “staged” to be “tremendously unlikely.” “This is just astronomically difficult to stage,” he adds. “The whole thing, from a filmmaking perspective, seems to be just immensely, immensely difficult and really based on a lot of chance.”What would be so hard about putting an MK-Ultraed patsy on a rooftop, a professional sniper in a difficult-to-spot location where he could shoot a couple of bystanders, and giving Trump a blood squib after rehearsing “hit the deck, smear the blood, count to fifty, get up, shake your fist in front of the flag”? Sure, you and I couldn’t do it, but we don’t control the top of the federal command chain.Setting up that scenario wouldn’t require precisely the same skill set that Parsons, the film-and-TV guy, enjoys. But if you think that people with “deceptive shooting” skill sets don’t exist, you must not know much about special forces, intelligence agencies, organized crime, and the rather large area where they overlap. That’s why someone like Joe Kent, the former Counterrorism chief who knows people with such skill sets, can easily see that incidents like the Butler and Charlie Kirk shootings are extremely suspicious, and point directly at the overlapping territory inhabited by Israel, Israeli-linked organized crime, and their assets in US military, intelligence, and police agencies…and, perhaps most importantly, the mainstream media that insists on obfuscating such matters. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Video linkWe interrupt this satire with a promo for my new book Bad Birder’s Birding Report: Nonsense Ornithology from Bad to Verse. Normally it’s twenty bucks plus shipping for a hard copy or five bucks for a Kindle ebook, but from now through midnight Pacific time tomorrow, Friday, May 1, you can download the Kindle version free...then leave a review before the Zionists get there!Why would you want to do that? Humor isn’t just a weapon, as the satire below exemplifies. It’s also healing. Studies show that laughter releases endorphins, reduces stress hormones, and improves cardiovascular function.Slashing satirical humor can be a weapon against tyranny. Gotta love those Iranians who laugh off Trump’s deranged threats, like Mohammed Marandi and the Iranian diplomatic team laughing off threats to their lives from the CIA-linked Washington Post (“hey Mohammed, I could strangle you now and collect the bounty”).But silly, lighthearted nonsense humor, like most of the poems in Bad Birder’s Birding Report, also has benefits. It unleashes the inner child, keeping the mind flexible and the heart human. Reading nonsense poetry to children—or to cats, as in the above video—is a great way to take a break from the ongoing insanity of media-distorted “reality.”And if you’re seeking Serious Literary Value, Claude Levi-Strauss would tell you that the poem “Catbird” (see video above; text here) begins with the binary opposition cat/bird built into the name of a certain meowing feathered species, and resolves it into Lewis Carroll’s famous “grin without a cat” (in this case a grin without a bird, either) thereby questioning the premises of mainstream ornithology and warming the hearts of conspiracy theorists and other epistemological ne’er-do-wells. If it leaves the reader as a smile without an ego, if only for a split second, you can always sue me in small claims court.We now resume our regular satirical programming…Trump to Declare Victory, Hope Iranians Die LaughingDissociated Press“A whole civilization will die laughing tonight!” Donald Trump’s chilling social media threat to declare victory over Iran, causing Iranians to collapse in helpless hilarity and laugh themselves to death, has been condemned as a war crime by the Pope, the U.N. Secretary General, the Office of Comedic Safeguards and Verification (OCSV) and other eminent individuals, institutions, and agencies.OCSV Deputy Director Evelyn Smirkov explained that calling such a calamitously misbegotten war a “victory” would exceed generally accepted hilarity guidelines by at least 100 megatons and thereby constitute a gross violation of international law, common decency, and generally accepted comedic practice. Smirkov added that Trump’s declaring victory over Iran would indiscriminately target civilians as well as military forces, causing Iranians from all walks of life, including women and children, to fall to the floor pounding their fists in helpless spasms of glee screaming “no! no! Stop, Trump! Please stop! We can’t take it any more! You’re killing us!” before expiring.Trump’s threat to wipe out Iran with a humor bomb reportedly emerged from a CIA study of potential Iranian responses to Trump’s declaring victory and fleeing with his proverbial tail between his legs. The study found that any victory declaration by Trump would initially elicit stunned disbelief, followed by howls of derision, and finally spasms of uncontrollable laughter that would cause its victims to dissolve into helpless blobs of jelly. By weaponizing the victory declaration and making it even more obscenely arrogant and ridiculous than everything else Trump says, the CIA discovered, Trump’s bombastically preposterous claim that he had triumphed over Iran could be made far more lethal than all the remaining stand-off bombs in America’s arsenal put together.The CIA study envisaged sending US special forces to Isfahan to attempt another raid on Iran’s enriched uranium while Iranian forces are disabled by laughter convulsions following Trump’s victory declaration. Unfortunately, the study’s authors concluded, the problem of “friendly funny fire”—that is, US troops finding Trump’s announcement just as hilarious as the Iranians do—makes that plan unlikely to work.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is reportedly planning to declare himself Messiah and cause all the goyim to die laughing, could not be reached for comment. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link Donald Trump just keeps on getting shot at. Fortunately for him, if not for the rest of us, the people shooting at him are stunningly incompetent. For some reason, competent shooters always shoot at people causing problems for Israel, like the Kennedys and Charlie Kirk, while the doofuses shooting at Trump couldn’t hit the broad side of an ear. And if by some fluke they do hit the broad side of Trump’s ear with an AR-15 bullet, the bullet itself turns out to be incompetent. Actually, an AR-15 bullet that hits a human ear without leaving any visible sign of damage is worse than incompetent. As Trump would undoubtedly say to such a bullet, had he hired it during his days at The Apprentice: “You’re fired!”And speaking of bullets getting fired…Trump’s press secretary, Karoline “Machine Gun Lips” Leavitt, predicted last night’s shooting two hours before it happened: “There will be some shots fired tonight!”Social media reacted with a rapid-fire full-automatic volley of rotten fruit. The consensus: “This didn’t age well.”Leavitt wasn’t the only one betraying insider awareness that the “shooting” wasn’t on the up-and-up. Fox News reporter Aishah Hasine was in the midst of describing Leavitt’s husband Nicholas Riccio half-bragging half-warning her of what was about to go down, when suddenly and for no apparent reason (beyond the obvious one) Fox cut off the feed.Naturally, each time yet another blatantly fake “Trump assassination attempt” is unveiled in real time before our eyes, complete with chutzpah-drenched “revelation of the method,” mainstream media goes into overdrive covering up all the obvious tells and pretending to take the ludicrous official narrative at face value. No wonder Gen-Z never even bothers to check what’s on MSM, instead going straight to the ribald chorus of sarcastic derision erupting on social media.Oddly, the latest fake Trump shooting happened just days after mainstream media suddenly felt compelled to take note of the fact that hardly anybody, even in Trump’s MAGA base, still believes that Trump’s ear was struck by an AR-15 bullet in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024. Last week Wired magazine informed us that “MAGA Is Increasingly Convinced the Trump Assassination Attempt Was Staged” and The New Republic echoed “MAGA Increasingly Believes Trump Assassination Attempt Was Fake,” while CNN offered a mind-bogglingly lame debunking: “How would an assassination attempt be ‘staged’?” and MS NOW ‘splained away “Why MAGA has developed conspiracy theories about the assassination attempt on Trump.”Author’s aside: I was all over the Butler fake Trump shooting long before it became fashionable.A paranoid conspiracy theorist who imagined that conspirators cover up their unraveling conspiracies by staging even more preposterous, instantly-unraveling conspiracies might be forgiven for wondering whether the latest blatantly-fake “Trump shooting” was staged to distract us from the unraveling of the earlier, equally-blatantly-fake “Trump shooting.” The coverup team, our conspiracy theorist suspects, must be cackling gleefully: “Bwa-ha-ha! They’ve all completely forgotten about Trump’s perfectly intact ear, and how those Secret Service guys let him stand right up and do that fist-shaking photo op in front of the flag, exposing himself to more potential shots, had anyone been actually shooting at him…Now all they’re talking about is Leavitt’s prediction and Fox News cutting off Aminah Hasine and how fake and gay THIS ‘Trump shooting’ is!”Another shocking fact about the latest “Trump shooting”: The alleged wannabe assassin was NOT, repeat NOT, an Iranian android made of LEGO. (They’re apparently saving that for the next “Trump shooting.”) This time, the patsy, Cole Tomas Allen, a computer science graduate and game developer, was recently named “teacher of the month in Los Angeles County.” According to Trump, the suspect “charged towards the hotel’s metal detectors in possession of ‘multiple guns’” but only managed to fire a couple of shots and lightly injure a Secret Service agent before being taken into custody.The “somewhat random shooting in loose proximity to Trump, one or more feds injured” schtick echoed last Thanksgiving’s false flag shooting two blocks from the White House, where long-term CIA asset Rahmanullah Lakanwal set himself up for a lifetime pension in witness protection by shooting or pretending to shoot two National Guard members. (Or perhaps he was mind-controlled and actually shot people and will in fact spend the rest of his life in prison.) The Thanksgiving false flag’s motive was all-too-obvious: Demonize immigrants so Trump could unleash the full force of his immigration crackdown. That shooting’s PR impact was sufficient to reverse the wave of court decisions hamstringing Trump’s war on immigrants. In its aftermath, Trump halted all asylum claims, pledged to "end all federal benefits and subsidies to non-citizens" and to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover." (Here is a typical outside-the-US discussion of the Thanksgiving false flag; if you don’t understand Moroccan Arabic, just use YouTube’s handy auto-translate feature.)The Thanksgiving false flag’s purpose was obvious (anti-immigration). The Butler ear-nick’s was even more obvious (anoint and elect Trump to obey Israel’s orders to attack Iran). But last night’s shooting at the Washington Hilton, unlike its earlier analogues, did not wear its purpose on its sleeve. Was it meant to demonize award-winning teachers or computer scientists or game developers? Probably not. Was it intended to demonstrate the need for a secure White House ballroom? That is one theory making the rounds on social media, propelled by Trump’s statement that the Hilton was “…not a particularly secure building…I didn’t want to have to say this, but this is why we’re going to have to have all the attributes of what we’re planning at the White House. It’s actually a larger room, and it’s much more secure. It’s drone-proof. It’s got bullet-proof glass. We need the ballroom! That’s why the Secret Service and the military are demanding it. They’ve wanted the ballroom for 150 years for lots of different reasons. But today is a little bit different. Because today we need levels of security that nobody has ever seen before.”The theory that Trump’s people would use a false flag to get a ballroom built sounds farfetched. But as Wikipedia tells us, “The project's above-ground construction has faced legal challenges, with construction as of April 18 being allowed to continue until June 2026.” Opponents of the project have called it sickeningly tacky, ostentatious, typically-Trumpian tasteless fiasco that defecates all over the historical integrity of the White House. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued to stop the project, while “the Trump administration replied that the ballroom construction must continue for classified reasons of national security that may be shared with the judge but not with the plaintiffs.”Just as Trump’s anti-immigration agenda had faced legal as well as political challenges that miraculously evaporated in the wake of the Thanksgiving shooting, so too his ballroom project has probably gone from “possibly obstructed” to “a done deal” thanks to last night’s false flag. So maybe those crazy conspiracy theorists aren’t so crazy. “There’s no way they staged this s**t just so he can justify building a ballroom LMFAOOOOOOOOOOO.” (1.5 million views.)Then again, all that ballroom-building blather could be a smokescreen for a deeper and more nefarious plan: Intimidate Trump into escalating the war on Iran. That would explain three strange, Israel-linked aspects of the shooting: the patsy’s social media profile featuring a picture of him wearing an IDF sweatshirt; the patsy’s name being allegedly researched in Israel Less than 24 hours before the attack; and the shooting erupting at the exact moment that an Israeli magician was terrifying Melania by exposing private information she had thought was secret. Taken together, those three odd Israeli connections to the event could easily be read as a message: “We know your Epstein secrets, we are the magicians creating these and other tricks, and we can get to you any time we like…so follow orders or else.”Trump is reportedly reluctant to escalate against Iran due to the devastating political fallout. His numbers are in free-fall, his MAGA base is cratering, and if the Democrats sweep both houses of Congress, impeachment, perhaps conviction, or even prison could be on Trump’s horizon. The war, and the economic damage it’s causing, is the problem. Finding an off-ramp before the damage becomes epic and irreversible is Trump’s overriding political imperative. But the only off-ramp is to hand Iran its victory laurels. And while Trump might be perfectly happy to lie and claim victory as he hands Iran the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions relief, and a nuclear deal that amounts to a lipsticked JCPOA, the Israelis see that outcome as an existential threat. For Netanyahu and his cronies, the war must go on until Iran and the whole region and the global economy are all flattened. So Israel has every reason to try to force Trump to accept the disastrous political price he is paying for this misbegotten war, by threatening him with even worse consequences if he seeks an off-ramp. Those “even worse consequences” could involve the prospects of either assassination or the exposure of catastrophically damaging material from the Epstein files or their analogues. The shooting last night, occurring at the exact instant the Israeli magician threatened the Trumps with exposure of their secrets, could be read as a double-edged threat referencing both of those “even worse consequences.”Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News linkWho should be anointed Supreme Leader of the United States of America? Donald Trump fancies himself a shoo-in. Like the 1960s Beatles, he thinks he’s more popular than Jesus. He wants a lifetime appointment, daydreaming: “If we happen to be in a war with somebody…no more elections.” I agree with Trump that America could use a Supreme Leader: someone who’s appointed for life and exercises guardianship over the state, like the Supreme Leader in Iran, or the Pope in the Vatican. But the last man on Earth worthy of such a position is Donald J. Trump. Instead, I’m voting for the guy Trump picked a fight with this week: Pope Leo.Trump’s spat with the Pope, like a pro wrestling match, pits a decent protagonist against a “cartoonishly evil” villain. On one side, a thoughtful, reasonable, peace-loving guy in a Pope’s hat; on the other, a deranged Epstein-class-blackmailed narcissistic megalomaniac who might as well be sprouting Baal horns. (Wait a minute…he actually is sprouting Baal horns!) Only the dumbest pro wrestling crowd on Earth, which would be saying something, would have trouble figuring out who to cheer for.Most Americans are cheering for the Pope to kick Trump’s lard-padded rear end all the way down to the seventh circle of hell. Figuratively speaking, I mean: They love Leo and are increasingly ready to vote in a Democratic Congress that will impeach and convict Trump in preparation for a court sending him to spend the rest of his life sharing a cell with Netanyahu or some woman who looks a little bit like Ghislaine Maxwell or that Israeli national hero who rapes people to death with sticks.Me, I’ll vote for a Democrat when hell freezes over. Anyone who thinks we can solve America’s problems by voting for the right major party, or the left one, obviously hasn’t been paying attention. The former United States of America has been devoured by systemic rot. All that’s left is the putrescent corpse of the country that existed before Israel and its Epstein Class murdered John F. Kennedy and set the stage for the Kosher Nostra’s total takeover of almost everything that matters.But the problem isn’t just the Epstein class. It’s the system that opened the door to them: a fake democracy run by an actual oligarchy. The Founding Fathers didn’t intend it that way. They created a democratic republic, with the republican elements holding democracy in check by way of an “aristocracy of virtue.” They believed that if some people have vastly more power than others, well, that may not be democratic, but it’s okay because the powerful people are a self-selecting virtuous elite. People with plenty of money, which buys power, are presumably more virtuous than wastrels and beggars: to gain that money, or not lose it, they must have been diligent, capable, reasonably honest, prudent, responsible, and so on. Such people, in theory, would run the country, advised by the hoi polloi by way of elections. The American Republic has fallen because its oligarchy has steadily grown less virtuous and more vicious. Why? The most obvious answer: “Blame the Jews.” Since Jews took over from Protestants as America’s dominant ethic group after World War II, the typically Protestant virtues of diligence, probity, sexual restraint, frugality, universalist fair-mindedness, and a certain asceticism, have given way to the typically Jewish vices of greed, dishonesty, tribal nepotism, sexual profligacy and deviance, and so on.But were the WASPs really all that virtuous? Perhaps not, though at least the vicious ones had the decency to be genteel hypocrites, following La Rochefoucauld’s dictum that “hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.” In any case, the USA was a completely different place back when gambling was illegal (now Adelson uses gambling proceeds to buy Presidents for Israel) and sex outside of marriage could land you in jail (now thinking there’s something wrong with it can practically land you in psychiatric observation) and liquor could not be bought on Sundays or after hours (today, only Muslims can even begin to envision booze restrictions) and obscenity, blasphemy, and pornography, not to mention blackmailing presidents by pimping children to them, were self-evidently crimes.Back when vice was illegal, Jews specialized in selling it. Usury, prostitution and human trafficking, abortion, liquor and drugs, gambling…such activities were taboo for Christians, but perfectly kosher for Jews to sell to outsiders. Now vice, and Jews, have come out of the closet and taken over. Everything is permitted, except criticizing the vicelords and their all-powerful oligarchy…because that would be antisemitic.But the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our Jews, but in ourselves. We’ve opened the door to vice, and the Jews who peddle it, by relinquishing religion. The one modern secular intellectual who gets this right is Emmanuel Todd, whose The Defeat of the West explains how ever-increasing secularization eventually lead to nihilism. Gemini summarizes:* Stages of Secularization: Todd outlines a shift from “active” religion to a “zombie” phase (where religious habits persist without belief), ultimately arriving at a “zero” stage.* The Rise of Nihilism: He argues that when the religious framework that once provided social cohesion (such as the work ethic and discipline of Protestantism) disappears, societies are left with an “emptiness”.* Deification of Emptiness: This state of “irreligion” does not simply result in neutrality; according to Todd, it produces a “deification of emptiness” or nihilism, which he characterizes as a drive to negate reality and destroy things and people.* Geopolitical Impact: Todd connects this nihilism to a “cult of war” and suggests it is a primary driver of the instability currently facing Western nations, particularly the United States.Protestants and post-Protestants tend to see religion as an individual thing. They think it’s about belief. But sociologists know how peculiar and unfounded that view is. Religion, ever and always, is about groups, not individuals. And it’s mainly about rituals and other actions, not beliefs. Religion is the glue that holds a community together. It promotes practices that offer a taste of the other world, in service to mapping out an orientation and a meaning to human existence, stuck as it is between this world and the next. To the extent that beliefs matter, they provide a metaphysical basis for privileging virtue over vice. But they do this mainly by infusing rituals and actions and shared systems of meaning, not by inculcating belief or arguing theology.Any society without religion inevitably rots into nihilism and dries up and blows away. That’s what’s happening to the West even as we speak. Trump, an openly vicious loudmouthed braggart forced into war for Israel by Epstein-class blackmailers, epitomizes the nihilism that infuses the West. The leadership in Islamic Iran, by contrast, is conspicuously virtuous, reflecting a society that is still held together by the glue of religion, as all viable societies are.So to fix the USA, it won’t be enough to just vote out the Epstein oligarchy. We need a return to religion.I propose that the Constitution be amended to include the post of Supreme Religious Leader, who will exercise guardianship over the American government and political system in roughly the same way Ayatollah Khamenei does in Iran. Our Supreme Religious Leader, like Iran’s, will be appointed by a Council of Experts elected by the people. The Council will consist of qualified religious scholars whose morals and ethics are beyond reproach, and whose reputation for spirituality is well-founded. (The Council itself will of course have to determine who meets those criteria and is eligible to be a candidate, whether for the Council itself, or for political office in Congress or the presidency.)The American Council of Experts will of course be more diverse than Iran’s, which consists entirely of Shia clerics. (Admittedly, Iran’s actually boasts a fair degree of religious diversity, since Iranian clerics hold extremely diverse views, though nothing remotely like what the US Council of Experts will feature.)The American Council of Experts will have to consist of people who respect other faiths and know something about them. Since our decadent society sends many of its brightest sons to seek plunder in Wall Street gambling houses or corrupt DC law firms, not to Religious Studies programs, we may initially face a shortage of qualified experts. In fact, the initial Council may be unable to muster more than two experts, E. Michael Jones and yours truly. After we are done appointing Pope Leo as America’s first Supreme Religious Leader, we will start taking applications from religiously-grounded intellectuals who would like to join us on the Council.False Flag Weekly News TranscriptKevin Barrett: Welcome to False Flag Weekly News, the weekly news show that almost manages to keep up with the insanity that’s afflicting your world. I’m Kevin Barrett with Dr. E. Michael Jones. Hey, Mike, how’s it going?E. Michael Jones: Good, Kevin. Good to be here.Kevin Barrett: It is. Yeah, we’re here. The world hasn’t ended yet. The Strait of Hormuz might sort of kind of be open or maybe not. We’ll get into that. We’ll also get into the big slugfest between the crazy president and the much saner pope. But first, let’s do our usual PSAs, public service announcements. We stand with Iran, and you can help False Flag Weekly News continue by going to truthjihad.com, finding your way to False Flag Weekly News, going to link number one, and that’s the fundraiser. Don’t let them cancel us. These guys have, but these guys haven’t. So you can PayPal or Zelle to TruthJihad(at)gmail(dot)com. You can freeze the frame and use the Mark of the Beast there, or better yet, here at SP Donate. And here we are. This is the—what is this? This is the PSA for “assassinate assassins.” So we’re told that the government has plans to kill all enemies, which would probably include us. So we better get them before they get us. So I actually called for the assassination of any political leader who even contemplates assassination. Good thing I’m not a political leader or I would have to assassinate myself. You can read the comment that was taken down from Yahoo by hitting pause. Yeah, so there she is. She’s been taken out of the lineup at MSNBC, Fox or wherever she was, not in a bad way. And Putin is still walking with us. Okay, breaking news. So, Mike, I’m sure you saw the breaking news today. Is it that the Strait of Hormuz is open or...? No, it’s closed. No, it’s open. No, it’s closed. What do you make of this?E. Michael Jones: Well, first of all, it’s an admission that they can’t go back to the status quo ante, which was that it was open to traffic and no tolls were being charged. So they can’t do that. So they have to do something else. So don’t just stand there and do something. So first they attack infrastructure. They’re threatening to attack infrastructure or attack civilians because they took out all the military targets they can take out. And now they’ve decided to blockade the blockade. Where does this end?So this means, I think, that they will attack Chinese ships so that the Iranians will let the Chinese ships through. But then the Americans will attack them and try to blockade them six weeks before they are going to have trade negotiations with China.It’s what you’re saying is you’re just flailing around. I think the operative instructions there are: don’t just stand there, do something, even though it doesn’t change anything. Do something.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, flailing around is right. Some people always thought the United States was too big to flail, but that’s apparently not the case under Trump anyway. So, yeah, this is getting crazier by the day. I’ve been on Press TV a couple of times talking about this. And, of course, it’s back to the usual Strait of Hormuz routine, apparently, where Iran has its toll booth and it doesn’t allow enemies through. So we’ll see how that develops. So this was the video of the traffic, and it seems like some of the traffic’s been turning around and going back. A lot of it’s turning around and going back. So, yeah, I guess so much. Here’s Trump trying to open the Straits. (Charlie Chaplin trying to open door.)Well, he hasn’t gotten it open yet. So I was on Press TV earlier today and also last night on the rolling coverage talking about this. And it’s Hormuzian confusion. That almost rhymes, but not quite. And, well, again, it’s really anybody’s guess what Trump is going to say next. Over in Iran, they’re supporting their government. These rallies are considerably larger than those small squares that they could fill with a few dozen people who hate the regime. So I guess Iran’s pretty united behind their war effort. This is Isfahan. And then Kushner and Witkoff, I guess, are praying for peace. (Image of them banging their beanie-topped heads against the Kvetching Wall.) Why did Trump send those guys to negotiate with Iran, Mike?E. Michael Jones: That’s a good question. I thought there was a change that the Iranians had said that they were willing to talk to Vance, J.D. Vance, because he wasn’t a Jewish real estate dealer. But then it turns out that that’s not right either because Kushner and Witkoff went to Islamabad along with Vance. And to top it all off, Vance took a call from Netanyahu while he was in the middle of negotiation.Well, the point here is that we talked about the Pope and Donald Trump. J.D. Vance is right in the middle. He’s a Catholic who was in the administration. So how do you react that way? The sensible thing to do would be to try and distance yourself from the Trump administration, to try and maneuver into a position where you have some type of independence. But he can’t do that. He wasn’t able to do that. He kind of stepped onto the stage and flubbed his lines, as many people do in history. It’s kind of like a repeat of Mike Pence, who was also a vice president. Couldn’t understand the dynamics of the situation. Couldn’t understand the way the Catholic vote was flowing out of MAGA, out of the MAGA coalition. Couldn’t do anything to address that. And so he took a kind of stance where he tried to lecture the Pope about not talking about theology. Be careful when you talk about theology.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, we’re going to get to that one. Yeah, he definitely put his foot in it there. Also, he should be taking phone calls not from Bibi Netanyahu, but maybe from the Pope. I think he would solve this thing a lot faster if he did that. Let’s get into the Trump versus Pope story. That’s our headline story this week. So Trump is attacking the Pope, which doesn’t seem like a good political strategy, six months out of the midterms. And especially because Trump sounds so unhinged. The Pope is weak on crime. Okay. And not only that, the Pope is weak on war, which is the real issue here, apparently. And then the Pentagon threatened the Pope. Did they? Did Hegseth get drunk and ask how many divisions the Pope has? What’s this about, Mike?E. Michael Jones: Well, they’re trying to—they don’t understand diplomacy. I think that’s the fundamental problem here. You don’t come on with a strong position that alienates the people that you have to keep on board. Just from a simple political point of view, one of the guys who understood this was Bill Clinton, who did a speech shortly after the whole Pope-Trump thing blew up. And he talked about swing states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Catholics are always the swing vote in these states, and it’s not a big percentage point. So if you alienate a relatively small number of Catholics, you lose the election. That’s what they didn’t do. Kevin Barrett: They alienated a huge number of Catholics.E. Michael Jones: Right, I know. So a completely unprecedented, full-blown attack on the religious leader of the largest group of Christians in the world and the largest group of Christians in the United States of America, with no sense that there might be political fallout from this. So it’s hard to understand anything other than Trump’s ego or his dementia being behind this.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I thought Trump was a canny politician, an idiot savant who had a talent for politics. But it seems like the savant part is wearing off. And so, yeah, weeks away from developing nuclear communion wafers. Watch out for that.E. Michael Jones: He was—the MAGA coalition was America First. That was it. A bunch of people came behind. That was an idea whose time had come. When he got into office, it became Israel First. And then what it degenerated into was religious war between the Jews, like Mark Levine, and the crypto-Jews, like the Christian Zionists, against the Catholics. I predicted this would happen because the kind of moderate Protestants that are symbolized by Tucker Carlson—his background is an Episcopalian drawing on what his father lived in, as Episcopalians in the CIA, that type of thing—that world has disappeared. And so it’s going to be a fundamental clash between Catholics and Jews. That’s what it came down to. And Trump, instead of evading or softening the blow, exacerbated the whole thing and created a huge conflict for Catholics in the government, especially Catholics in the military.Kevin Barrett: Well, the problem is you guys don’t hate Muslims enough. They (Catholics) don’t hate Muslims enough. E. Michael Jones: Well, that’s the problem there. So you have the Pope, which is what you need if you’re going to have a universal church. You have to have someone outside of the political process who then can address the political process from that point of outside and say, these are the criteria you have to meet, the criteria for the just war theory. If you don’t meet them, it’s an immoral war and we can’t support it. It immediately puts the Catholics in the government in a bind. What do I do now? It’s approaching an even greater crisis because they’re going to apparently initiate a draft in December. That was the end of the war in Vietnam. They had to get rid of the draft because it alienated an entire generation. Now it’s going to be even worse. This is the ADL saying this: the most anti-Semitic generation in the history of the United States is now the 20- and 30-year-olds who are completely tuned into the Jewish question, unlike the baby boomers, unlike our generation, who are still watching Fox News. And they are now going to be put in a position where basically, are you willing to die for Israel in what the Pope and the military vicariate archbishop has said is an immoral war? That’s not going to work. That is not going to work.Kevin Barrett: Well, maybe those 20-somethings need to get drafted to be sent to Israel to liberate Palestine. That’s a war that some people would say might actually be a just war. But here, let’s check out our— we have a long list of these Trump versus Pope slides this week. People, of course, had fun with this. But this obviously is retouched. But the guy really did look sort of like Epstein in the original. And above Trump’s head, we see that bald figure with the horns and these sort of demonic wings or something. And what’s that about? Because that actually wasn’t in the image that existed before Trump tweeted this. So the very first time that anybody saw this image with that demon above Trump’s head was in Trump’s tweet of the image. Somebody retouched it, probably not Trump himself. And so here’s Trump trying to explain what happened.Donald Trump: Well, it wasn’t depicted. It was me. I did trust it. And I thought it was me as a doctor and had to do with Red Cross as a Red Cross worker there, which we support. And only the fake news could come up with that one. So I just heard about it, and I said, how do they come up with that? It’s supposed to be me as a doctor making people better, and I do make people better. I make people a lot better.Kevin Barrett: Okay, so Trump is a doctor, and so this is an image of Trump as a doctor. And then here he is tweeting against the Pope. He’s weak on crime, terrible for foreign policy, on and on and on. Yeah, like you said, this just seems politically totally self-destructive and crazy. I mean, he’s losing his marbles, if he ever had any in the first place.E. Michael Jones: But on the other hand, what he’s doing is introducing a religious dimension to politics, which is an interesting gambit to take because then it brings back what exactly is this country’s relationship to religion? That’s a complicated question because we have never had an established religion, although we do have an established religion de facto. It’s kind of proof you can’t get along without an established religion. So instead of saying up front that it’s this or that or the other thing, we have the Congress now celebrating a Holocaust memorial.Kevin Barrett: Okay, we’re back after some technical difficulties here at False Flag Weekly News, doing the Trump versus the Pope section with Dr. E. Michael Jones. So, Mike, you were just talking about the poor political judgment shown by the White House.E. Michael Jones: Right. By introducing these specifically religious themes, you’re undermining the fundamental operating system of the American Republic, the de facto, which is basically that the Enlightenment is above all religions. That’s the premise. You have it in plays like Nathan the Wise, a classic play by Lessing about the discussion between Saladin, King Richard the Lionhearted, and a Jew. And the Jew is Lessing, and he’s the de facto smart guy in the room. But basically the whole point of this is that religion is compared to a ring. The true religion is a ring that God has given, but he gave many rings. Nobody knows whether it’s the true ring anymore, so we all have to pretend that we’ve all got the true ring. But what you’re doing is elevating the Enlightenment above that type of discussion that rational people—it’s like the Masonic lodge. We understand all the hoi polloi believe in God, but we have a superior understanding. That’s the de facto hidden grammar. And so therefore we will go along that line. He broke that mold by identifying himself with Jesus Christ. By doing that, you are doing exactly what that Jew David Gelernter did, the Yale professor who wrote a book called America: The World’s Fourth Great Religion. So you are making it into an idol that is going to alienate people who take Christianity seriously or any religion seriously. And there’s going to be a pushback. And then you’re going to look into what’s the real story here, and that’s going to lead back to Baal.The Ayatollah Khomeini was right when he said America was the great Satan. The real hidden grammar, that’s that figure in the middle there. I don’t know who put it in, but it’s like this demonic figure that now has people talking about this. He started a discussion that he really did not want to start. You don’t want to start this discussion. But being impulsive the way he is, he got himself involved in something that is going to lead where he doesn’t want it to go.Kevin Barrett: Indeed. He’s giving ammunition to the Iranians who are saying that the Americans are on the side of Baal. And we’ll talk about that in a second. But let’s see, we’re getting ahead of ourselves. There’s so much to talk about with this Pope versus Trump stuff. So you were suggesting in your tweet that it looks like Trump is suffering from tertiary syphilis or whatever other kind of dementia seems like as good a guess as any.E. Michael Jones: Yes. So I said this. There’s a book out there called Pox by a lady named Deborah Hayden. I reviewed it when it came out years ago. And it’s an interesting book because it talks about a lot of figures. The common denominator is they all had syphilis. Now, most of the time, this is obviously before penicillin, but it had a huge effect. And so what they began to realize was that tertiary syphilis, which is the stage after, like 20 years after you’re infected, shortly after you’re infected it seems that the disease goes dormant. But what it does is those spirochetes will move up, and they can take control of your brain. And that occurs about 20 years later. So this is theoretically possible. We know that Bill Gates contracted a venereal disease from the Epstein episode. We know that Donald Trump wasn’t a model of chastity. I don’t know. It’s always difficult diagnosing syphilis because it always masquerades as something else.Kevin Barrett: You’re not a doctor, but at least you know you’re not a doctor, unlike Trump.E. Michael Jones: Now wait a minute. I am a doctor. I have a PhD in America. I’m that kind of doctor too. And that makes me an expert on African AIDS because that was a complete fiction. So I gave that talk in Africa. So the question is, the reason I mention this is because after studying it for so long, they came up with actual symptoms. And one of them is delusions of grandeur. Grandiosity is one of them. It’s called pressure of speech, another symptom, which is basically you constantly talking, but the normal filters that you have are completely missing. And so you say things that are completely inappropriate, like open the f*****g straits on Easter Sunday. Happy Easter and open the f*****g strait. This is not appropriate speech in any way, shape, or form. It is certainly not appropriate speech for the president of the United States. And so what happens is he’s bringing about a discussion of this. It’s completely antithetical to his own self-interest and beyond his control. That’s what I think is happening. It lends credence to people like Emmanuel Todd, the French philosopher who was talking about the decline of the American empire because of the evaporation of Protestantism.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I agree. I think he’s the best French intellectual out there these days. So here’s Carrie Prigine-Mahler tweeting that Iran defends Catholics more than U.S. politicians do, pointing out that Pazeshkian is standing up for the Pope against Trump. So we can see who’s on the side of God, who’s on the side of Baal here. And you’re pointing out in this tweet, of course, that it’s a big problem for Vance, the Catholic who’s supposed to be Trump’s heir apparent.E. Michael Jones: Right. By the way, just to get back to Carrie, there were two archbishops on that religious freedom panel, and they both threw her under the bus. Barron did it first. She was hoping for support, and Barron threw her under the bus. But the one woman on the committee was a Muslim who came to her defense. So again, we’re seeing tectonic plates shifting.Kevin Barrett: Absolutely. Your call for a Muslim-Christian alliance is definitely timely. So this isn’t the first time Trump’s been inappropriately tweeting about the Popes and religious figures and offending Christians. He actually claimed that he should have been given the job of Pope at one point and tweeted this picture. You can’t make this stuff up. And here we get to the Baal part of it. So somehow that image above Trump in the version that he tweeted is this Baal figure, which is— I was looking at a movie or something. But the question is, who put it there? Because this picture of Trump healing the sick existed before Trump tweeted it, but it didn’t have Baal in it. And so the version that Trump tweeted does have Baal in it. Is Trump putting Baal into his tweets for some reason just to make us think he’s even crazier and more demonic than we thought he was? And he says he’s a doctor, but nobody believes that.So it’s very, very strange. Here’s one version of it that each of those figures matches up with somebody in Trump’s life, more or less, whether it’s Soros, Jeffrey Epstein, Mark Levin, Ivanka, Laura Loomer, Randy Fine. And this is likely to get Trump chased from the White House. Normally, I think Jesus, peace upon him, only used physical violence against Jewish bankers, but he might make an exception with Trump. Marjorie Taylor Greene says this is the Antichrist spirit, and that ties in with that Baal. Now, who would put Baal in this picture and have Trump tweet it? It’s hard to figure out.So Mike, what do you make of this Baal imagery?E. Michael Jones: Well, there’s a connection that he certainly would not want to make. But what happened after Roe v. Wade got overturned? Four hundred Jewish organizations came out and said that abortion was a fundamental Jewish value. What was Moloch or Baal? That was child sacrifice. What did the Jews do? Their feet were still wet from walking across the Red Sea when Moses delivered them from the Egyptian captivity. They immediately started worshiping Baal or Moloch. So this is the story that’s coming out. It seems to be a coherent story, but the only mystery here is who’s connecting these dots. Which goes back to that figure there. Who put that figure in there? Did AI put that figure in there? Was that intentional? Did Trump put it there deliberately? We don’t know. We just have to meditate. But there is a coherence to this story that I think is coming out. And it’s the opposite of the story that Trump would intend for his own political purposes.Kevin Barrett: Well, that’s for sure. First he picks a fight with the Pope right after using foul language on Easter, and then he puts Baal into his tweet right when the Iranians are out there burning effigies of Baal and saying they’re at war with the Epstein class, which worships Baal. So he’s playing right into this narrative against him. And social media is full of these takeoffs on great religious art, imagining that he’s Jesus or the Pope or whoever he thinks he is this week. And again, he says he’s a doctor. He says he heals people. So nobody’s believing that. And finally, Ken O’Keefe here is pointing out that the Epstein class behind Trump, these are the people who hate Mother Mary and hate Jesus.And this spat has gone on all week. It didn’t stop. Trump went off on the Pope, went off on him again. The Pope responded very temperately and cogently. And then Trump just went off on him again, more than once. I can’t even count how many anti-Pope statements Trump made this week. So it seems like the Antichrist spirit is manifesting itself in the White House.And I wrote a piece about this. Anyway, it’s back and forth. And I don’t think Trump’s going to call in a military action against the Vatican. That would be going too far.E. Michael Jones: I think that’s going too far, but this is an attempt. So what about the Antichrist? It has a tradition in Scripture. The Book of Revelation was written during the time of Nero, the emperor of Rome, who was persecuting Christians. So what you see here is that the Antichrist is a type. There will be an Antichrist, an actual figure that comes at the end. But I don’t think it’s Trump because he’s not deceiving anyone. And the Antichrist will—Revelation says even the elect will be deceived. He’ll be such a plausible figure. Trump is not plausible, but he is acting according to a scenario that repeats itself throughout history. Nero, he was an Antichrist. He persecuted the church. The same thing was true of Julian the Apostate, another Roman emperor who also persecuted the church. It was Persia that stopped Julian the Apostate. And I see it as the same role that Iran is playing right now. We are incapable of breaking the rod of tyranny. We, the American people, are incapable of doing it. We have a political process that has installed these people. And when God allows the people, warns them through the prophets and they kill the prophets and ignore everything they said, he eventually says, I’m taking it out of your hands now. You will be punished from the outside. He sends Nebuchadnezzar and that drags them into the Babylonian captivity.This is something similar to what happened to Julian the Apostate. He was going to work with the Jews to bring about his Middle East foreign policy, which is basically I’m going to conquer Persia. And he attacks Persia. The attempt to rebuild the temple, which is always an Antichrist project, failed. And he went ahead and attacked Persia anyway. And Shapur II destroyed his army in a kind of miraculous way. And so Trump—here we go again. Julian the Apostate is retreating back through the desert to Rome. A figure comes out of a sandstorm with a lance and stabs him. And the last words that Julian says is, Thou hast triumphed, O pale Galilean, and he dies. So we see all these uncanny replications of current situations.Kevin Barrett: I can’t imagine Trump saying anything as coherent as “Thou hast triumphed, O pale Galilean,” but other than that it’s a pretty close parallel.E. Michael Jones: Well, he’s still in that delusional phase. And I’m sure if you talk to Julian the Apostate before the guy with the lance showed up, he would have been talking pretty much the way Donald Trump is talking now. He probably had generals who were telling him, look, we can’t invade Persia. They’re these big mountains. It’s not going to work. And he just ignored them in that kind of manic phase where the delusion just before the bubble pops. And then suddenly the whole thing disappears.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, that’s a plausible analysis. So they did figure out who supposedly first sent Trump this picture, but that hasn’t answered the question about who put Baal in it. So the guy who did it was some crazy Trump supporter from Florida who’s given him money before and gotten him in trouble before. And so here’s the Baal part of the picture that somehow got inserted using Photoshop or what have you. And again, it’s a kind of a mystery how it got there. In any case, Trump’s tertiary syphilis or delusions of grandeur, narcissism, whatever it is, it’s obviously getting worse by the week, if not by the day.Kevin Barrett:And he’s lashing out at everybody, not just at Jesus, not dressing up as Jesus and lashing out at the Pope, but he’s also going off on Joe Kent and Tucker Carlson, calling them sleazebags, saying they have low IQs. I’m pretty sure all of those people have considerably higher IQs than Trump does.And then Marjorie Taylor Greene is talking about how Trump all but gave her son a death threat, saying it would be her fault if somebody killed her son because of her not being a Trump loyalist. So he’s really out of control. But his people around him are stepping in it too.Vance and Hegseth this week—this is what you mentioned earlier, Mike. Vance told the Pope he had to be very, very careful in getting involved in matters of theology, which is definitely one of the more bizarre statements from a Catholic vice president, wouldn’t you say?E. Michael Jones: Yeah, he was badly advised here. He was badly advised. He should have tried to educate the people and say, well, you know, we need some type of moral input to foreign policy because you’re trying to achieve the good through action, which is the purpose of practical reason. If you completely absent yourself from moral theology, you’re going to have an incoherent and irrational foreign policy, which is precisely what we have now. So he could have said that, but he just did not rise to the occasion.Kevin Barrett: Right. Well, he’s in a tough position. Trying to defend Trump at this point is really kind of a fool’s errand, I think. Here was your tweet about this. So yeah, you pointed out that Vance flubbed his lines because he didn’t understand the dramatic changes that are taking place as we transition to the Fourth Republic. You would think if anybody in this administration had a clue about that, it would be Vance. But for whatever reason, he seems almost as clueless as the rest of them.You can’t underestimate the—what should I say—the coup, the great achievement of the CIA during the initial period after World War II, when they were just getting started, like ’53, the attack on Mossadegh. They created the anti-communist crusade, and the Catholics were all on board. They got the Catholics on board. It was a guy like C.D. Vance, who was working for both the CIA and Time-Life, great in creating these propaganda campaigns. In 1953, the same year that the coup in Iran took place, he said that the CIA had lost its greatest salesman because Stalin had died.Now you got the allegiance of all of these Catholics behind the government, the United States government, at the very time that the government was actually attacking them through the destruction of Catholic neighborhoods. It was an orchestrated government campaign that I documented in my book, Slaughter of Cities, Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing.Now Trump is doing the exact opposite. You can’t afford to alienate a big group of people like this, and that’s precisely what he did. And Vance isn’t helping him. Now Hegseth is taking it even a step further. Kevin Barrett: Again, these are all weird sorts of almost blasphemies, right? Trump dressing up as Jesus really is a blasphemy, and using foul language on Easter is blasphemous. Then Vance telling the Pope that he should stay out of matters of theology is kind of borderline blasphemous. It’s certainly offensive at least. But then here’s Hegseth reading this fake Bible verse from Pulp Fiction during a sermon at the Pentagon. The context here is that this fake Bible verse is spoken by Samuel L. Jackson’s character. He’s a hitman, and he’s about to brutally murder some kid and blow his brains out all over the screen. Disgusting, horrific scene. And Hegseth is preaching a sermon and uses that line from Pulp Fiction. I mean, this is like the Baal on the picture of Trump cosplaying as Jesus. These people seem like they can’t stop blaspheming.E. Michael Jones: Well, this is a sect that is based on a radical distortion of the Bible. We’re talking about the Schofield Notes to the Bible, which got published by Oxford University Press, gave it a lot of prestige that it didn’t deserve because the Untermeyer family had those connections. Then that became the basis of Christian Zionism. But the problem is, they’re so overt in promoting this, you get pushback from the Catholics. “Wait a minute, that’s not my religion.” Suddenly you’re exacerbating the Protestant-Catholic split, for example, at the very time you should be smoothing it over and trying to provide a united front against the common enemy, which is supposed to be Iran. It’s completely counterproductive. You don’t want to introduce religious division at a time of war.If you go back and look at the term Judeo-Christian, it basically came into being during World War II because they wanted some type of united front against the Nazis. The Jews were being persecuted, the Holocaust narrative—blah blah blah—but that’s when that term was created. It was part of the propaganda campaign to unite the American people against a foreign enemy. But they’re doing the exact opposite now. They are creating religious division by this religious overreach that antagonizes people like the Catholics, who say, “Wait, that’s not my religion.” Then the Pope jumps in and backs up that claim, and suddenly you’ve got an impasse. You’ve destroyed the unity of the United States. We can’t project power. You’ve broken apart the MAGA coalition by highlighting the very religious differences that you would want to obscure or put in the background to have a successful political coalition. So it’s completely tone deaf. But maybe that’s God’s plan. Let’s allow these people enough rope to hang themselves, and they will bring about the exact opposite of what they intend, but what God intends.Maybe that’s what God intends. I did a piece where I said we know that God wants peace—I wrote this article, it’s in Culture Wars—we know that God wants peace, but does God want a ceasefire? Maybe God wants a permanent peace that will entail the removal of this cancerous regime in the Middle East. Maybe that’s the only possible solution that will bring about peace. We have to keep this in mind when we’re looking at the global picture.Kevin Barrett: Well, to the extent it’s a religious war, all of these things are making the Iranian narrative sound much more plausible. They say they’re fighting against Baal. They say they’re fighting against the Epstein class, which worships Baal and whose headquarters of their global crime ring is occupied Palestine. That’s looking all too plausible. All of this blasphemy—whether it’s Trump pretending to be Jesus and then lying, or Hegseth uttering fake Bible verses from a horrific scene in a horrific movie—it’s making the American political class look like they’re run by Baal, run by the Antichrist.E. Michael Jones: This was kind of the genius of Ayatollah Khomeini, who called America the Great Satan and introduced that type of religious discourse into the political world at a time when the United States was basically a technocratic operation: we have superior knowledge, superior weaponry, superior this, blah blah blah, and religion has absolutely nothing to do with it. That was the genius, and now all of these people are reinforcing the idea that Khomeini launched in 1979. It’s uncanny.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I think you’re ahead of the curve in your discussions of this topic, the reason that America has a satanic streak. So here’s the scene from Pulp Fiction that Hegseth borrowed his supposed Bible line from. There’s Samuel L. Jackson about to shoot somebody point blank in the head, and Tarantino shows that in all of its bloody glory. That’s where he got the speech—Samuel L. Jackson’s speech right before he shoots this kid in the head. This Hegseth with his bizarre tattoos and stuff—he’s definitely from Baal.Well, here’s our music video of the week in honor of Pete Hegseth...What shall we do what the drunken HegsethShall we do what the drunken HegsethShall we do what the drunken HegsethEarly in the morningHe was drinking on the Fox set before the showtime.He was drinking on the Fox set before the showtime.Early in the morning.Married at the strip club in his uniform.Married at the strip club in his uniform.Married at the strip club in his uniform, early in the morning..”Okay, that’s our tribute to Pete Hegseth.And finally, the question arises: is Trump crazy, or is he just the Antichrist? You once said, Mike, he’s not very plausible, so he probably isn’t the Antichrist—probably just channeling the Antichrist. The New York Times is thinking he’s crazy. A lot of people have been asking these questions, going back to Bandy Lee publishing the book about him right as he entered his first term almost 10 years ago. But now we’re hearing it among all kinds of people, including his own advisors, allies, retired generals, diplomats, foreign officials—they say, yeah, he’s crazy. They’re not saying tertiary syphilis, but maybe they should be.Kevin Barrett: Here’s my post suggesting he’s channeling the spirit of Antichrist, as is Hegseth, and even Vance when Vance is telling the Pope to keep his nose out of theology. It seems to me that the spirit of Antichrist may be something other than the supposed actual character, the Antichrist, who’s supposed to show up as one single individual, whether it’s Dajjal.E. Michael Jones: Right. It’s always going to be the emperor who succumbs to his own delusions of grandeur. There’s always an element of insanity to that that doesn’t necessarily have to be physical dementia. It can be simply the result of consistently irrational behavior. Rational behavior is moral behavior. Morality is practical reason. If you live a life that is constantly divorced from reason, you could call it insanity. Why wouldn’t that be the same thing?So Aquinas says, for example, that lust darkens the mind. That’s a good way of dealing with this. Obviously, he’s not a model of chastity. If you dedicate your life to lust, eventually the light of reason will go out. When the light of reason goes out, it sounds like insanity. Or when ambition, pride—when you finally lose control of that battle and act according to that vice—you become irrational. That means a kind of insanity. There’s a natural progression that doesn’t have to have a physical cause. It can follow from simply absenting yourself from living a life according to morality and practical reason.Kevin Barrett: Absolutely. And if there’s any organic physical element, it could be syphilis—or too much Diet Coke. He supposedly drinks 15 or 20 Diet Cokes a day. I’m surprised he’s still alive.Even Tucker Carlson is noticing the Antichrist spirit associated with Trump—the leader who exalts himself above all deities and mocks faith. A dark time for Washington. Iran is pushing back. The House missed ending the war by one vote. At this stage, having it that close is pretty interesting. The blockade was getting worse. It doesn’t look like that’s been solved.Pakistan is siding with Iran. So the Americans have a supposed client state that seems more sympathetic to Iran than Washington. How the next round of negotiations will go—we’ll have to report back. It seems Ali Khamenei will go down in history as a bit of a chess master, as well as a grandfatherly religious leader, because it looks like the Iranians have got Trump checkmated, which is one reason he’s lashing out irrationally.E. Michael Jones: Yeah, I agree. He painted himself into a corner. This was unnecessary. He could have had what he wants now if he had let the JCPOA stand. He brought about his own demise and the demise of the empire under the delusion that he’s saving it.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, the law of unintended consequences is coming back to bite him. The Iranians downed another expensive piece of military equipment this week—a spy drone. I’ve seen these in the Aerospace Museum in Tehran. They’ve got rockets, launchers, and American drones they’ve shot down or hijacked.Trump is not doing well on social media. The Atlantic says he’s no longer a “Chad.” He’s losing the trolling contest to Iran, which is making short videos. The Iranian embassies are trolling him heavily. Iran is winning the social media war.E. Michael Jones: The Iranians always loved making movies. They’ve had that tradition. Now they’re just upping their game with short videos geared to short attention spans.Kevin Barrett: The allies of the United States are off the bus. Spain is the furthest off—refusing U.S. use of territory, shutting down connections with Israel, opening an embassy in Tehran. NATO is dissolving. Italy is stepping back. Australia had to make peace to get oil and gas. Trump is lashing out at allies.E. Michael Jones: Where does it end? He’s going to be completely alone.Kevin Barrett: Trump can always threaten Greenland or Tasmania.The war on Russia isn’t going well either. Europeans are escalating recklessly with drones. Russia is warning that strikes could trigger NATO’s mutual defense clause. But NATO will likely fall apart before that.E. Michael Jones: Germany is the anomaly—internalizing commands of its oppressors, continuing a war not in its interest, damaging its own industry. Eventually they’ll have to leave NATO and make peace with Russia…Kevin Barrett: Let’s talk about the Internet fringe material this week...This was the big New Yorker article, how the Internet fringe infiltrated Republican politics.And by Internet fringe, they basically mean people like us who have noticed that the Zionists are occupying not only Palestine, but also the United States of America. So all these young people are waking up to this.And so here’s the New Yorker sending a photographer to take these old-fashioned black and white pictures to try to make these young people who notice what’s going on in the world look weird and old-fashioned. And there’s the scary, scary picture of Nick Fuentes. A little double exposure there to make it exciting.“On his popular streaming show, Fuentes opines about the virtues of Adolf Hitler and the nuisance of women and minorities.”Right, right.E. Michael Jones: Look, I think Israel just listed the top 10 anti-Semites in the world.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, we’re going to get to that.E. Michael Jones: I know. I just want to complain about that.But what we’re talking about here is a controlled opposition of people that exaggerate or are not predictable and so on and so forth. And then they’re trying to establish, put this label on what is a growing movement of unhappiness with Jewish control of our culture.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, they’re trying to make it look weird and sinister. But the cool thing about this article is that it makes it clear that the majority of the young conservatives are hip to this. Like, I think they quoted something like three quarters or two thirds or whatever of the Republican Senate staffers now believe that Israel killed JFK and did 9-11.Well, they did.And so, wow, that means that we’re, I think we’re succeeding in our mission. You know, there were times in this truth jihad I’ve been doing since 9-11 that I got a little discouraged and wondered what the long-term historical record would show about this. But it does seem that the younger people are waking up, and surprisingly to me anyway.E. Michael Jones: Is that, by the way, is that Dinesh D’Souza?Kevin Barrett: Oh, this?E. Michael Jones: Yeah.Kevin Barrett: I don’t know. I don’t know Dinesh D’Souza that well. It looks sort of like him.E. Michael Jones: Fishback.Kevin Barrett: Oh, yeah, Fishback. He’s the guy who’s running for governor in Florida.E. Michael Jones: So a perfectly natural reaction to Jewish over-control in a place like Florida, where the governor goes to Tel Aviv to sign a hate speech bill that’s going to punish Floridians, and then they try to portray this guy as some type of...Demagogue or lunatic? No, this is a perfectly natural reaction.They’re desperate because the New Yorker has what? Lost its ability to control the mind of the intelligentsia? They’re part of that whole obsolete categorization story that is now trying, flailing desperately to regain relevance when they cannot. There’s only one relevant topic now, which is Jewish control of our culture. That is the only political issue right now, and try to disguise that, try to demonize the people who are smart enough to wake up to it. It’s not going to work. Not going to work.Kevin Barrett: Absolutely not. And this attempt to make these people look weird and scary, you know, that this black and white thing looks almost like it’s taken from the original George Romero zombie movie, The Night of the Living Dead. But they still came through with a certain... glamour might not be the word, but these kids, to me, they don’t look so bad. But they really worked in the New Yorker to get creepy black and white photos of them to make you scared of them.And of course, the Epstein thing is central to this, right? I mean, everybody knows Epstein was an Israeli agent collecting blackmail material on powerful Americans, probably including Trump, which is probably why we’re at war with Iran.And so the news this week on that front was that Pam Bondi tried to weasel out of her—what was it? She was summoned to testify in front of Congress. And by resigning or being fired or whatever she was, she supposedly weaseled out of it. Or so she says, so the Justice Department says, but apparently Congress doesn’t agree. So we’ll see how that plays out.And so that’s the Epstein news this week.Okay, Anti-Semitism Watch, our favorite part of the show. This was the top 10 anti-Semitic influencers in the world, according to this Israeli group, the Diaspora Affairs Ministry. They’re terrified of rising global anti-Semitism, conspiracy theories, and false claims about Jews and Israel. And I guess Dan Bilzerian got number one. He’s another quote unquote anti-Semite who’s running for Congress in Florida on a take back America from the Jewish Zionists who own it currently.So here’s the top 10 anti-Semites. And like I said, Mike, we used to get attacked by the ADL on a regular basis, and you probably have more recently than I have. But I’m feeling left out.E. Michael Jones: I am fairly left out there. So I’m just going to tell you the pushback I got response to this. And they’re saying that if someone wrote to me and said, look, if they put your name up there, someone’s going to Google your name and they’re going to find out that you wrote books and they may buy the book. And if you buy the book, they will be convinced that you’re not what they said you were. So they’re not going to put my name up. That’s what they said.I think it’s true. I think it’s absolutely true.Now, I don’t want to denigrate any of these people. I mean, God bless them for taking a stand for whatever. But if you have Mr. X podcaster, who is basically, that’s all he is, well, okay, put his name up. You’re not going to find anything. There’s not like some type of secret cache of information that will change your mind. It’s all pretty much what you see is what you get here.And that’s why I think people like this, I don’t want to, again, I don’t want to denigrate any of these people, but that’s why they’re being promoted. This is a kind of controlled opposition. They also are, in some sense, unpredictable. And so you never know exactly what they’re going to be saying and so on and so forth. And so I think that’s the common denominator here.The real strategy that’s been articulated was Ginsburg’s book, Fatal Embrace. The first stage and the most effective stage is called dynamic silence, where you don’t even exist anymore, according to these people. That’s the most powerful form of censorship. And this plays into that by the people who are left out.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I think you’re onto something there. One of the commenters at the Unz Review said something like, well, maybe the reason that they’re not putting Kevin Barrett and E. Michael Jones and Ron Unz, especially, on this list is because anybody who actually reads those guys will learn something. And plus, they can win the intellectual debate. And some of these other people, well, maybe they can, but they’re not as likely to change people’s minds.Well, this was another anti-Semitism watch story this week. The Espresso, which is the most popular coffee—no, the most popular magazine in Italy—published this cover of that Zionist settler harassing the Palestinian woman with abuse as the headline. And just by publishing that, they got into big trouble. The usual suspects, the Israelis and their friends, accused the Espresso magazine of, you guessed it, anti-Semitism for publishing that picture.Leading to this tweet, imagine being so ugly that your own genocidal government condemns the publication of your photograph as a hate crime. That’s not nice, but it’s true.E. Michael Jones: So now it’s anti-Semitic to take a picture of a Jew or of an Israeli?Kevin Barrett: And, you know, it was certainly anti-Semitic to reveal the guy, the Israeli prison guard who raped the guy to death with a broomstick and turned into a national hero in Israel. You know, talking about him is anti-Semitic too.So yeah, this guy became sort of the poster child for Zionism for this week. A Syrian girl was noticing him, as were others. And Kim.com has a fair number of followers on X, and he’s not that enthused with these attractive Jews of the Holy Land either.Meanwhile, Netanyahu says that Europe is getting morally weak, so he used Holocaust Remembrance Day as the day to try to whip Europe back into line. Do you think he’ll succeed in the long term with this?E. Michael Jones: No, no. The Holocaust is a trope of the Third Republic, and it’s going to disappear. They overplayed their hand. It’s over. It’s not working anymore.Kevin Barrett: Spain and Italy are totally out of control, and the rest of Europe is on the way. Here in Spain, they are even burning effigies of Netanyahu. And of course, if you burn an effigy of a war criminal like Netanyahu, that would mean that you must be anti-Semitic. They blew it up, even. That’s even better than burning it.E. Michael Jones: So eventually, yeah, we’ll have to ask the ultimate question: is God an anti-Semite? That’s a theological question. And I guess J.D. Vance would say that it’s theological. The Pope should definitely not get into it.Kevin Barrett: So how about the Roald Dahl anti-Semitism scandal this week? The New York Times covered this new Broadway play that’s apparently a huge hit that’s basically designed to demonize Roald Dahl, the great children’s author behind Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and other classics.So this John Lithgow, the actor who plays Roald Dahl, he says he loves the role because it’s so monstrous. He wants to be a monstrous anti-Semite like Roald Dahl.But Mike, if you actually look at what did Roald Dahl say to get labeled as such a horrible, monstrous anti-Semite, it’s very, very tame and reasonable and errs on the side of being too philo-Semitic, in my humble opinion.So the fact that they’re crucifying this guy long after his death is really…it’s revealing of the way that they must be just totally panicking about the fact that the world is finally onto them.E. Michael Jones: Yeah, and why Roald Dahl? I mean, he was not a model of children’s literature as far as I’m concerned. He was a very subversive guy, a very unattractive guy, a kind of nasty guy that came out in his fiction, which is the type of thing that the New York Times used to promote to basically remove the innocence of children, or attack the innocence of children, or subvert that whole idea of children’s literature.Kevin Barrett: Interesting. Could be. But now it turns out that they’re going to claim he’s nasty in a whole different way. That used to be a good way of being nasty, to subvert the innocence of children. But now we’re going to say that he was an anti-Semite.And the interesting thing about this whole story was that they had to write stuff into the play that was not actually part of his biography to make it look like his career is being threatened. Because back when he was saying that the Israeli genocide of Lebanon in—what was it, 1981, 1983—the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when they just slaughtered like 30,000 Lebanese civilians, and he spoke out against that, and apparently at that time that didn’t get him canceled. You could still say things like that.And he said some things about, you know, this group of people has gone from being the persecuted people to the persecutors in record time. That’s anti-Semitic? Give me a break.E. Michael Jones: It reminds me of Donald Trump. What exactly is the point of attacking Roald Dahl at this point? Have you run out of other targets?Why are you attacking this man?Kevin Barrett: Well, yeah, I’ll tell you, Mike. I actually have an answer. I think it’s because, as you see from this play, in the play they had to invent stuff that didn’t really happen in real life involving him being in danger of being canceled by the literary establishment. Back then, before the Jews had completely taken over, he could say stuff like that and not be canceled. But now you breathe a single word that they don’t like, and you’re toast. And so they put that in there, and now they’re trying to put that message out that if you say a single word that we don’t like, you’re toast.E. Michael Jones: Yep.Kevin Barrett: Okay, well, Orban, who, by the way, was put into power by Netanyahu strategists, is out. That’s the good news, I guess, that one Zionist, namely Orban, who’s out, even though he had some positive aspects to his way of ruling Hungary, as well as negative ones, but he lost. Peter Magyar decisively beat him this week.And here’s the bad news. The future Hungarian PM is at least as equally Zionist-owned and operated. So one Zionist out, another Zionist—what’s it? Out with the old Zionists, meet the new Zionists.It’s like American politics. We go from left wing Jews to right wing Jews or, in this instance, from right wing Jews to left wing Jews.E. Michael Jones: So he’s a supporter of the European Union, which has held up 20 billion euros in aid. And he will free that up by introducing the homosexual agenda to Hungary. So, you know, back and forth, back and forth.Kevin Barrett: Right. One Jewish Zionist party versus the other Jewish Zionist party. And some people are blaming Vance for this because everything Vance does turns to whatever. He leads Iran negotiations, the talks collapse. He visits the Pope, the Pope dies. He flies to Hungary to Papa Orban, Orban loses in a landslide. He’s on a streak. Okay. Go, Vance.And finally, our last story of the week, will Trump actually try to have a cage fight or a, what do they call it, a UFC fight with the Pope? He’s building a UFC arena right at the front door of the White House. I mean, talk about vulgarity. I mean, this guy makes Jay Gatsby look like a very refined and cultured individual. What’s with this, Mike?E. Michael Jones: I think there are very few apertures that allow you to enter Trump’s mind. And one of them is real estate and the other is wrestling. I think that’s the two. That’s it. So that’s the way he views the world, and so we naturally would build this arena there.Kevin Barrett: Well, I don’t think there’s going to be a UFC fight between Trump and the Pope anytime soon. But you can’t put anything past Trump. So there you go. Anyway, whatever Trump does next week, we probably will have to go ahead and report it here on False Flag Weekly News.All right. Well, thank you, Dr. E. Michael Jones. Always great touching base. Keep up the fantastic work. People are going to be increasingly admitting that you’ve been ahead of your time for a long time.E. Michael Jones: Thank you. Thank you, Kevin. Good to talk to you. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkI did Press TV rolling coverage interviews last (Friday) night and again this (Saturday) morning. The topic, naturally, was the “Hormuzian confusion” generated by Trump’s out-of-control mouth. The above video begins with a brief Press-TV-chosen highlight reel from the Friday interview, followed by a complete archive of my portion of the interviews. Below is the complete transcript. -KBFriday, April 17 interview: I think this is a historic change. We’ve seen what really amounts to Iran testing its nuclear option by showing its power over the traffic going through the Strait of Hormuz, and therefore its power over the entire world economy, including especially the US vassal states in the region. And Iran has successfully demonstrated that power. And that has apparently forced the Americans to push the Israelis back from doing what they wanted to do, which was to continue their genocide in Lebanon. And so that problem isn’t yet solved, but at least there is a slowdown in this aggression coming from the Israelis in Lebanon. And that was completely done by the leverage of Iran. And so I think this is a very positive development.And I wouldn’t put too much faith in what Trump says at any given time, because for one thing, he doesn’t appear to be fully in control of his mouth. Sometimes he deliberately lies, and sometimes it seems to be almost an unconscious process. So I wouldn’t consider Trump the best source on any of this. He’s going to be trying to lie his way out of the problem he got himself into by allowing Netanyahu to convince him to attack Iran. So I would listen to the Iranian leadership, and I would also listen to other third parties, including the Chinese and perhaps the Europeans, perhaps to a certain extent the Pakistanis. The upshot is that Iran has emerged from this brutal series of acts of aggression, this series of war crimes committed against it, actually much stronger than it was before. And the downside is that this is not going to play well with the genocidal maniacs in Tel Aviv. So there’s going to be a continued impetus for conflict coming from those quarters. But the good news is that, for now at least, it looks like the Americans might actually be reacting with at least a slight sliver of rationality, which essentially means admitting that Iran has them checkmated, and that’s going to change the region and the world forever.The blowback from this is obviously immense. And this may go down in American history as the worst decision made by an American leader and the stupidest war ever launched by an American leader. And that would be saying something. Had Trump and his people not decided to go along with the suggestion, or rather the order perhaps, of Netanyahu, and launch this bloody war by assassinating the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran and massacring those schoolgirls, the Iran side would never have done this. It would never have exercised this nuclear option of openly taking control of the Strait of Hormuz. That was always a defensive parameter. It was a defensive option that Iran would be able to use if it were attacked, if it ever suffered aggression at a certain level. And everybody knew this. It’s very strange why the American leadership didn’t get the message. The top military and intelligence leadership understood it, but apparently nobody around Trump was willing to stand up to him. Apparently he’s got a narcissism issue and he doesn’t like to be contradicted. And apparently he’s got a certain amount of influence over him coming from Netanyahu. So the Americans ended up making this very, very bad decision.Before this, they could convince their Gulf allies, or should we say the vassal states, that they could effectively protect them. And then they could steal protection money from those Gulf states. And that era now is over. This unilateral American control of the Gulf and of its energy resources and therefore of the backing of the petrodollar is now over. Iran has shown that it’s the ultimate power over the transit of energy and other materials through the Strait of Hormuz, and if necessary, the Red Sea as well. And that completely changes the geopolitical landscape, and not in a way that’s favorable to the United States. So the Americans will try to find a way out of this to minimize the damage and minimize the embarrassment. But ultimately this is a huge takedown for the American empire, and that means it’s also a very, very bad sign for the genocidal Zionist entity, which had really better deeply reflect on the course that it’s been taking, because it won’t be around in just a few years if it continues on the path that it’s on. It has always depended on the protection of the Americans, and American power is ebbing very rapidly.Well, you’re right, the European vassal states usually do anything that the United States orders them to do, no matter how stupid. But this was an exception because it was so stupid that it rose above the level of garden-variety American stupidity to a whole new level of utter and complete idiocy. Like that retired French general said, Trump was the captain of the Titanic selling discount tickets after the ship had already struck the iceberg. That is, they could see that this was not going to be successful by any possible definition. They knew, like everybody else knew, that Iran would likely close the Strait of Hormuz and exercise this nuclear option that would essentially force the other side to back down. And I think they also had maybe better intelligence. Well, certainly they had better intelligence than Trump. Trump’s intelligence was coming from Netanyahu. And what Netanyahu really believes, I have no idea. But in any event, the Europeans, like all the professionals in the field, knew very well that there was no way that murdering some people in a dastardly sneak attack on Iran was somehow going to magically transform Iran into a pliant, obedient Western vassal state that would acquiesce in the genocide of Palestine and in the theft of its materials and economy and resources. No way. It just wasn’t going to happen. And the Europeans knew that, and everybody else knew that.And apparently the reason that Netanyahu would have been willing to risk this kind of suicidal war from the Western American perspective is that he was gambling on some kind of huge regional war that would allow the Israelis to pursue their plans for greater Israel by massacring and expelling the remaining Palestinian population and completing their genocide, invading more territory from their neighbors and emerging from the smoking ruins of the entire region as supposedly the strongest power. I think that was Netanyahu’s dream, but that was never realistic. And the realistic people in all the other camps, including the Europeans, could see that this was a counterproductive effort from the American and Western perspectives. And also, of course, the Europeans found it absurd that Trump was asking them to send their navies to open the strait, when the American navy, which is more powerful than all of the European navies put together, was afraid to come anywhere near the strait. It was almost humorous in its ridiculous quality. And then Trump’s petulant crying and whining about how the Europeans wouldn’t help him open the strait just added to the irony, or really the dark humor, of the whole thing. So it was no mystery why the Europeans turned him down.The real mystery is why he thought that they would, and why anybody would ever imagine that they would. And in fact it’s also a mystery why the Europeans have gone as far as they have in listening to the Americans. In this one case they didn’t, but so often they do to their detriment. Why haven’t the Europeans taken Flint and Hillary Leverett’s advice and gone to Tehran a long time ago? They could have opened up productive trade relations. They could have undermined this whole American-Israeli war, and we would never have had this crisis, and they would have made a lot of money, and they would have actually beaten the Americans in this kind of competition for working with Iran’s vast, untapped economic potential. But Europeans may be stupid, they may be vassals of the Americans, but they weren’t stupid enough to buy those tickets on the Titanic after it had already hit the iceberg.Saturday, April 18 interview: Well, this isn’t surprising, because Trump is now becoming notorious for saying whatever comes into his head and then contradicting himself the next minute or even the next second. And so it’s really to be expected that the messaging coming out of the top of the American command chain is not going to be consistent and is not going to bear much scrutiny, certainly is not going to reflect reality. So I think we have to basically assume that the Americans are, as the Russians said a long time ago, non-agreement capable. That is, they’re incapable of clearly formulating an agreement and then signing it and sticking by it. They have a history of killing negotiators in the midst of the most promising moments in negotiations. And they have a history of going back on their word. Famously, of course, they promised never to move NATO one inch eastward after the end of the Cold War, and then they just kept on marching eastward, almost up to the gates of Moscow. And so I think they’re just as non-agreement capable with regard to this war on Iran as they were with regard to the post-Cold War war on Russia. And so just as the Russians learned they had to essentially use force and build up the military power and not rely on the word of these American leaders, Iran is learning that as well.Yes. Clearly this is going to put equal pressure on the American side. The American side seems to think that it can just randomly apply these kinds of bullying sanctions and bullying approaches to Iran in hopes of trying to restore some kind of sense of dominance, because essentially they are what we call in American idiomatic English sore losers. That is, they’ve lost and they are unable to gracefully admit defeat. Indeed, they’re unable even to gracefully admit it or to gracefully lie about it and try to claim some sort of victory, which is what a better leader might do. But instead they are lashing out with these kinds of self-destructive maneuvers that create chaos in the attempt to come to some kind of settlement.Obviously, Iran is going to continue to monitor and restrict shipping through the Strait of Hormuz for as long as the Americans keep their blockade in place. Obviously, the Americans should have known this, and perhaps they did, but if they did, then what were they thinking? I guess the American approach now has evolved from this Cold War period of trying to impose some kind of order on the world to the post-Cold War period of increasingly seeking to control the world by imposing chaos, that is by attacking other countries and creating conditions that are not conducive to peace and prosperity. And maybe the Americans hope that that will prevent the rest of the world from developing economically and technologically and catching up and overtaking them. But in this case it’s not going to work, because this level of chaos and destruction and this level of damage to the world economy, which is self-inflicted damage by the American side, is not going to be tolerated by the world. And the world is going to be pressuring the United States to try to behave more sensibly and rationally and predictably and settle this thing to get the goods flowing again.Well, yes, I think that since the Americans are non-agreement capable, and not only that but they have the Israelis sabotaging any efforts that they might make to get any kind of agreement, essentially Iran is going to have to, number one, simply match the American actions with its own actions. That is, if the Americans continue this blockade, obviously Iran is going to continue restricting the flow through the strait. And then secondly, I think that since the Americans have this monster, this monkey on their back, that is Netanyahu and the Israelis trying to stir up an ever bigger war, I think that Iran needs to get guarantees that aren’t restricted to just the word of the Americans, which isn’t reliable. Instead, I think Iran needs to find some kind of formula to have an internationally guaranteed kind of agreement, that is to get other parties involved in guaranteeing it with a higher, ironclad commitment that if this is broken, then the other parties are going to take specified actions against the party that breaks the deal. And I don’t know whether Russia or China would be available for that or whichever countries were involved. But I think that there has to be some balance here, because the Americans are unreliable. And again, they have this so-called partner of theirs, really this parasite that has eaten their brain and has taken them over, that is the Zionist entity, and that the Zionists want ever-increasing war. So the United States needs to find a way to balance that, or rather Iran needs to find a way to balance that by bringing in outside parties that can push as hard for keeping to an agreement as the Israelis are pushing toward always breaking agreements.Interviewer: All right, and let me ask you another question, since we’re out of the conversation. So we’re looking at the fact that we still don’t have an established date for negotiations to take place. Many are saying, don’t be fooled, that this is another way, especially when you have the Russian Security Council having issued a statement just a few days back, that this is just all a cover by the Israeli regime and the U.S. now because they want to really launch a ground operation. What do you think? Do you think that this is what’s unfolding right now?It wouldn’t surprise me if the American leadership is crazy enough to be thinking along those lines and to imagine that a ground operation, a land war in Asia, as the famous saying goes in the United States, never get involved in a land war in Asia. But the Trump regime is so unstable and so heavily influenced by Netanyahu and his minions that you can’t put anything past them. And not only that, but they can make money through this roller coaster ride of ups and downs in the stock market and the commodities markets and the futures markets, because their people, the insiders, know when Trump is going to say something that calms the market and makes everybody think that peace is coming, and then when he’s going to do something crazy that threatens the world’s economic future and causes the price of oil to go through the roof and the futures markets to shoot up and all that.So it’s entirely possible that the American leadership is so unstable and so influenced by the crazies in Tel Aviv that it actually is planning some kind of ground operation, perhaps another attempt to snatch Iran’s uranium and steal it, or perhaps something else, perhaps something symbolic, attacking the islands. But it’s hard to imagine that the United States could possibly be serious about really accomplishing anything with a ground operation against Iran. Because even though the United States spends 100 times as much as Iran in terms of military spending and should have that much more strength, as we’ve seen, Iran punches way above its weight and is more than a match for the American aggressor. Now, the Americans would have to muster as many as a million men to have any hope of trying to do a ground invasion, and that is politically impossible. So whatever Trump is planning along those lines would just essentially be making his defeat even worse and creating an even bigger crisis for the American empire. But that doesn’t mean they won’t do it.Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute linkMakia Freeman, author and editor of The Freedom Articles, just published The Cult of the Chosen Ones. Below is a rough transcript of our conversation.Transcript:Kevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audiovisual. I’m Kevin Barrett. I’ve been doing radio for almost 20 years, and audiovisual for a little less than that. I try to bring on people who’ve done interesting writing, translating good writing into audiovisual. And we have a brand new book to discuss today on a topic that I’m interested in: I’ve got Makia Freeman here to talk about The Cult of the Chosen Ones. And guess what cult that would be? I can imagine. So, hey, Makia, how are you?Makia Freeman: Good. Thanks, Kevin. Thanks for having me on.Kevin Barrett: Okay. So, yeah, Cult of the Chosen Ones. It sounds like a science fiction novel. Who is it? The comedian Dave—what’s his name—(Chappelle) who talks about the space Jews, right? The cult of the chosen ones from outer space. You could do it science fiction, but it’s almost that crazy even just here on Earth. So why don’t you introduce yourself and then tell us how you came to write this book.Makia Freeman: Sure. So I’ve been studying the global conspiracy full time since 2007. I’ve written five books, and this is my fifth one. And it’s very comprehensively researched. It has 900 footnotes and 700 pages. And what I wanted to do with this book is tell the story of and connect the dots of how this cult that hides behind Judaism, how it actually arose and what happened, how it kind of gained strength throughout the ages. It came down from BC times through the Middle Ages and then up into Europe. And then it started really accelerating with these two fake Jewish messiahs, and then how the second one of them linked up with the Rothschild family. And then it started getting into all sorts of organizations and agencies and governments and creating things, and it took over the world. And so we’re seeing the effects now in our age.Whenever we see these big events like political assassinations or false flag operations, it’s this cult that’s behind it. Also, just if you look at the history of the 20th century and all these major events like these revolutions and things like that, you can find the hand of this cult behind it. So I wanted to connect all those dots and then bring it right up to the current times with the genocide in Gaza, the Iran war, and just show that it’s pushing forward towards its crazed agenda. And we still have time to stop it, but the amount of control it exerts over the world is really tremendous, unfortunately.Kevin Barrett: Right. Well, let’s talk about what precisely is this cult, right? Cult of the Chosen Ones. Your title makes it sound like that could be Judaism, which notoriously, of course, does have this notion of being God’s chosen people built right into it. But then we’ve also got Sabbatean Frankism, this kind of satanic messianic millenarian heresy that blew up starting several centuries ago and may be behind the Rothschilds. And then, of course, we have Zionism, this modern political movement influenced by both of those other two. So we have Judaism, we have satanic messianic millenarian madness of the Sabbatean Frankist variety, and then we have Zionism. So your cult of the chosen ones—which is it, or what is it?Makia Freeman: Well, ultimately, I believe if you really dig down deep into it, it’s a satanic cult. And it manifests itself through—definitely Sabbatean Frankism is a big part of how it’s played out in the world. But ultimately, I would say it’s even beyond that, because these are the people that we have all these references to Baal and Moloch and worshipping strange gods and child sacrifice and all of this from ancient times. And so it goes back even further than I traced in this book, thousands of years BC, and who knows when this whole thing started.But I pick up how it started to manifest itself within Judaism. Now, some people would argue that it actually created Judaism. Other people would say, well, no, it was more like a sect within Judaism that felt like they were the chosen ones. And this sect basically took over Judaism or it basically carried it forward. It depends really which source you listen to.Basically, this idea of the chosen ones is a very insidious idea, because if you think that you’re chosen, there’s supremacy baked into that idea. It’s hard to believe that you’re chosen and yet still believe that all humans are equal and afford people the respect and the rights if they’re outside of your little clique or group. It’s interesting when people that are non-Jewish interview Jews these days and they say, you know, tell me about this idea of the chosen ones, and I see a lot of backpedaling by Jewish rabbis and other Jewish scholars or experts. And they try to say, well, you know, it doesn’t mean that we’re better. It just means that we’re chosen for a particular mission. And everyone’s chosen for a mission. Everyone’s called to do something. And they try to kind of play it off like it’s no big deal.But ultimately, I don’t really see how you can believe that and then still treat everyone equally. I think it’s a real problem, this idea in the first place. And some people say, well, isn’t that just part of some Jewish books? We’ve got the Talmud and the Torah and the Kabbalah. No, it’s actually baked into all three of those Jewish holy books. Whichever one you follow, there’s always this idea of Jewish supremacy. And then when I see it play out, when I actually see some people talk about it, some Jews, it’s basically the basis for their worldview and how they conduct themselves in the world. They have their whole world split up into Jew and Goy, and they’ve got completely different systems of morality and respect for whatever class you’re in.And then I see other people that are called Jewish, that they’re so-called Jews, but they reject this chosen people ideology. A couple of examples would be Gideon Levy, who’s a great journalist who writes for Haaretz. I’ve seen his work and I’ve seen him speak, and he’s like, you know, this is one of our major stumbling points as Jews. We have to give up this stupid idea and just throw it away. And then other Jews such as Professor Shlomo Sand, who’s written a couple of really incredible books such as The Invention of the Jewish People, he also disavows this idea.So I want to be just clear that I don’t lump all Jews into this. Maybe there are some Jews that feel like they can still believe in this and at the same time treat everyone equally. But there are definitely some Jews who are like, this idea is kind of poisonous completely. And I think it’s an impediment to being a good person.Kevin Barrett: Well, theoretically, it would be possible to believe that your group had been chosen by God for service, to serve humanity and be even more humble than everybody else and work harder for the common good than anybody else. That actually would be a great idea. I would love that kind of group. But I think, unfortunately, it seems that mainstream Judaism has taken the opposite approach. And it believes that actually the Goyim cattle were created to serve the master race Jews. And so, yeah, it’s definitely not—the way it manifests in reality most of the time is not so good.And I think one of the most interesting and insidious aspects of it is the way that this community, which believes itself chosen, then has this really seething hatred of outsiders. It’s a really strong in-group/out-group. And of course all groups have some of that, right? We Green Bay Packers football fans hate the Chicago Bears, right? That doesn’t mean we’re going to necessarily mistreat people from Chicago, but this in-group/out-group kind of dynamic is common.However, it seems to have gotten kind of exaggerated with this particular group, and they’ve been very successful at infiltrating different societies and then seizing hold of really nice, lucrative economic or socioeconomic niches. And long-distance trade is really a good one for them, because if you’re infiltrating several different societies around the world, then you have a huge advantage in engineering long-distance trade with your co-ethnics and engaging in ethnic nepotism.So we have this group that hates outsiders, engages in massive ethnic nepotism to seize control of the most lucrative and most advantageous kinds of socioeconomic niches. And so that situation, of course, the outsiders, if they understand this, they’re going to push back. And so that’s not good. That’s not good for the Jews, right? Is it good for the Jews is the first question that Uncle Chaimie asks when he opens the Sunday New York Times and looks at the stories.So therefore they have to come up with storytelling and narratives to distract us and to essentially obfuscate what they’re really doing. And I think the biggest problem here is that for millennia they’ve been working on this talent for spinning these deceptive narratives to camouflage what they’re really doing—in other words, lying. They’ve become really, really good at lyin’ for Zion, lying for the tribal benefit. And then when they take over the media, as they have in the West, and impose their lies on the whole society, take over the money-printing system, that’s, I think, a big part of the problems that we’re facing today.But the lying and the storytelling, the talent for spinning things for tribal self-interest in order to protect their ethnic nepotism racket, seems to me to be kind of the core of the problem. What do you think?Makia Freeman: Yeah, I mean, they lie as easily as they breathe, unfortunately. So it’s a big problem.I would say if we look at what the definition of a cult is, part of the characteristics of a cult are that they get people away from whatever family or community they were once in and they get them into this new ideology or group. And then they start saying there’s normally an ideology and a charismatic leader or leadership. Then there are techniques and features like you bring the initiates into the cult, you indoctrinate them, you get them dependent on the cult, and you get them loyal to the cult. And you cut off their normal branches with friends or family or other people so that everything—they live and breathe the cult, and they don’t really have any of the frame of reference outside of it.And ultimately, where you can really control people is you get to the point where they’re willing to die or kill for the cult. And that’s what I really notice about this. When you look at the people that work for these pro-Israel-first positions where they only care about Israel and they don’t seem to care about anything else—and these aren’t people that just live in Israel. There’s a lot of these people in America, these rich Jewish billionaires that are funding both sides of the political spectrum, that are working in Hollywood or they’re working in the media. They’re in very high positions of power, and they’re like, all I care about is Israel.That becomes super dangerous then because they’re willing to kill or die for something which is a very questionable cause in the first place. And it’s very different to any other country. I mean, I heard Thomas Massie talking about this. He’s like, you know, when you look at dual citizens, say from Germany or Australia—I’m Australian originally, I’ve lived in America for a while—I like Australia, I have a fondness for it, it’s my home, but I can’t imagine ever wanting to kill or die for Australia in the way that these Israelis do. Some of them are so obsessed with Israel, Israel first. And I’ve never met anyone from Germany or from France or from a lot of other countries that has that kind of obsession. So it’s just a very interesting question as well to analyze. How did they get to this point? What are they brainwashing their kids to say or do? How do they get all these Jews to become so obsessed that they will kill or die for Israel?And then, of course, they’ve got the classic technique in addition to the lying that you’re talking about, just projection—psychological projection. Every time some of these guys open their mouth, like Netanyahu, and they accuse Iran or Hamas or Hezbollah or whoever it is, the enemy of the day, they accuse them of something, it’s always actually a confession in disguise. Because what they’re doing is projecting whatever aspect of their society or themselves that they don’t like. They then put onto their so-called enemy and direct the attention onto the enemy and away from themselves.A classic example is how they’re always calling Iran the biggest state sponsor of terror, when actually Israel is the biggest state sponsor of terror, or maybe something like Saudi Arabia, which behind the scenes works closely with Israel, on the surface pretends to be opposed or neutral, but behind the scenes they’re whipping up Takfiri Salafi jihadists to go and invade their neighbors, including attack Iran.So there’s the lying, there’s the psychological projection, there’s this cult-like behavior of killing and dying. They say their enemies would be really dangerous if they got a nuclear weapon. What country is one country that shouldn’t have nuclear weapons and has tons of them? A country of like a million people that has 400 nuclear weapons? Well, it’s all about Iran. Oh my God, Iran might get nukes.We’ve had several Israeli historians like Martin van Creveld basically say if Israel ever got pushed into a corner, they would use their nukes. We’ve had people like Jonathan Pollard talking about what happened in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War, describing how an Israeli jet came out onto the tarmac with nuclear weapons under its wings as a message to the Americans. Then the next day Henry Kissinger gave Israel the aid it needed.So we’ve had overt suggestions or even statements that Israel would use its nukes if necessary, while at the same time claiming Iran shouldn’t get nuclear weapons. And recently Trump has gone absolutely crazy with all of his bombastic threats and tweets. And yet the US has the second most nukes in the world as well. So how can these people possibly say with any kind of objectivity that nukes only belong in the hands of sane and rational and stable people when they act the way that they do?Another thing is the constant way that Netanyahu and Israel are always saying, well, these Arabs, these Muslims, they just teach all their kids to hate Jews right from when they’re born and they just want to kill us all. And yet if you look at some clips that surface on the internet, you can see what happens in these Israeli classrooms where they’re teaching kids, okay, Arabs are bad, what do you want to do when you grow up? Oh, I want to get a gun and kill all Arabs. Okay, good, we’ve done our job.Kevin Barrett: A Jewish friend of mine in the United States had a brother who immigrated to Israel specifically to “kill Arabs.”Makia Freeman: So I see the influence of this cult-like behavior on certain segments of Israeli society. Also, when people go to Israel from the West and interview people on the street, it’s not just the leadership. There’s a large segment of Israeli society that has been so brainwashed that they’re like, yeah, we support that. We should use nukes, we should start a war, we should genocide Palestine. I think the amount of open love of and display of hatred is really disturbing.Kevin Barrett: They made a national hero of the guy who is raping a prisoner to death with a stick. Huge demonstrations broke out and forced his release from prison. And it looks like all those people are going to get off scot-free because the dominant strain of thought in Israel thinks that they’re national heroes for sodomizing people to death with sticks. I mean, what a strange country.And then they project that and imagine that it’s the Arabs and the Muslims who are so full of hate. But I’ve honestly been hanging out with Muslims and Arabs for quite some time, and I’ve never met any who would ever say anything like, oh, I want to go somewhere and kill Jews. I’ve never heard anything like that. But it’s somehow normal that my Jewish friend’s brother would move to Israel to kill Arabs. There’s kind of a disconnect. And as you say, they’re totally projecting it, and then they’re broadcasting their projections into the media so all the consumers believe it.Makia Freeman: Yeah, it’s a big problem. But it’s interesting, because what I tried to do in my book is find Jewish sources. I tried to find Jews within Israel and those outside who could see this problem more objectively, who’d woken up from the brainwashing, or it never worked on them. And there are a number of Jews who don’t buy into this at all, whether it’s Norman Finkelstein or Gilad Atzmon. They’re openly critical. And it’s good to use sources like that, because then you can’t be accused of being anti-Semitic.Kevin Barrett: Well, you can be accused. Just wait and see.But when you’ve got Jewish people themselves talking about their inside view of the situation, it carries a lot of weight.Kevin Barrett: I agree. Some of the best critics of Jewish tribal ideology are Jews themselves or people who grew up as Jews. Some call themselves ex-Jews, like Henry Herskovitz of Ann Arbor, Michigan. And so there are a long list of people like that.And I guess I’m sort of like that with regard to my American upbringing. I grew up with a certain ideology in America and quickly discovered there were some serious problems with it—Vietnam, the Kennedy assassination, and ultimately 9/11. I’ve become a harsh critic of my American tribe. And there are Jews like that too. But the Jewish tribe is a lot more cult-like, more intense, more hating of outsiders than most other tribes, including Americans.Getting back to that cult status, what are some of the techniques that they use? Because you mentioned that cults take people and cut them off from their families and their normal culture. But with Jews, they grow up in a Jewish milieu. So how do you get the cult dynamic going without separating them from their earlier culture?I always thought that circumcision played a big role in this because there’s a school of psychology that John Bowlby founded called attachment theory. Bowlby and many other researchers discovered that the human personality is powerfully affected by its early relationship with caregivers, especially bonding with the mother. Disrupted attachment is correlated with serious life problems.So anything early in life that causes insecure attachment is likely to have a major impact. When you do circumcision at one week, which is extremely painful, and the mother allows the child to be taken away and mutilated, the baby will have a deep unconscious memory of this trauma. Then throughout life they’re enculturated with the idea of an evil outsider who wants to harm them. That image can connect psychologically to the trauma, creating projection onto outsiders.So it’s a form of trauma-based mind control, in my opinion. And I think banning circumcision in early life would fundamentally change things.I think there’s a lot to that, especially when you consider the invasive and disturbing nature of the ritual. So that could be a big part of the dynamics that allow for indoctrination.What are some other things?Makia Freeman: Well, not just within Judaism, but generally, manipulators always say get them as young as possible. Present a worldview early, often with elements of fear. For adults, people who feel unworthy or disconnected are more susceptible. Cult leaders identify emotional vulnerabilities and exploit them.It’s interesting to look at cases like James Jesus Angleton. Somehow he became deeply aligned with Israeli interests. He developed close ties, visited Israel frequently, even met Ben-Gurion privately. He was involved in major intelligence operations and cover-ups.Kevin Barrett: So how did they get him to that point? I think there are multiple factors, including Cold War anti-communism. He saw Israel as a bulwark against communism, and that ideological framing likely played a role.Makia Freeman: Yeah, you’re right. I think that does explain it. Let me say a couple of things in response. The first is that I actually found evidence—there’s a letter from one of the leading Rothschilds to Marx. I believe it’s either a letter or a receipt where he’s paying him some amount of money to help start writing a manifesto. So I think it depends how you look at history. You can see it as a natural flow of conditions where societies adopt ideas that become movements and evolve, or you can look at the role of manipulation.As a conspiracy researcher, I’ve seen a lot of evidence of how social engineers at the top manipulate the masses. So I have a bias toward the conspiratorial view. There may have been a natural movement—like the desire for wealth equality—but elites are very good at steering those impulses.They might see a movement forming and then say, “We need our agents to steer this. We need to shape the ideology so we can control it.”The whole issue with communism or socialism is that it sets groups against each other—the poor versus the middle class or factory owners—while ignoring the bankers and administrators who end up in control.In the end, whether it’s capitalism or communism, you still get a small group at the top running things. That’s the real pattern.Kevin Barrett: Right. I think those are somewhat separate issues. That kind of manipulation does exist. But there’s also the fact that human societies tend to be hierarchical.In smaller, tribal societies, hierarchies are more fluid and there’s more support for weaker members. But in large, complex societies, you always end up with structured hierarchies—leaders, bureaucracies, chains of command. That happens regardless of ideology—capitalist, socialist, or otherwise—and regardless of whether Jews are involved or not.As for Jews influencing socialism or communism, I think what may have happened is that they saw movements for economic justice and used them to weaken traditional social structures of non-Jewish societies. One way to do that is by attacking religion, which is central to social cohesion. The French sociologist Emmanuel Todd has written about this. I highly recommend reading him.There’s also the attack on family values and sexual morality, which weakens societies. You can see this in declining birth rates, though that’s a broader phenomenon.So yes, manipulation exists, but I don’t see it as a single, all-encompassing conspiracy controlling everything.Makia Freeman: Okay, yeah, I see that. One interesting thing is that when Jacob Frank came through Poland into Germany and Frankfurt, he made an alliance with the Rothschilds. There was also Adam Weishaupt, who started the Illuminati in Bavaria in 1776.I’ve seen evidence of Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s will, where he supposedly outlined goals like intermarriage within the family and targeting religion, monarchy, and political systems to achieve world domination.So I can see how a long-term plan like that could be carried out over generations.Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I think there’s some truth to that. The Sabbatean-Frankists may have more influence than people realize, possibly even in the creation of Israel. Their inversion of morality could explain what some see as extreme or excessive behavior. Ron Unz has talked about what he calls the “cartoonish evil” of Israel.There was also a recent case of an Israeli woman who came forward about ritual abuse involving high-level figures, and then died under suspicious circumstances. So maybe that gives insight into the type of networks involved.Makia Freeman: Yeah, that doesn’t surprise me. I wrote a book in 2023 called The International Satanic Network Exposed. I wasn’t focused specifically on Jews, but on a broader global network. There are victims from many countries—Australia, the U.S., and others—who describe similar patterns: abduction, rituals, abuse, involvement of powerful individuals. Some accounts describe these rituals taking place in churches or political buildings, involving elites. Victims say they were raised within these systems and later escaped.So I think Sabbatean Frankism may be part of it, but not all of it. There are people from different backgrounds involved. Ultimately, I think it’s a satanic network. Participants believe they gain power through rituals, possibly involving possession or interaction with some kind of entity. They believe they receive power or energy, and that this influence then shapes policies and decisions at high levels.Kevin Barrett: Interesting. So if Earth is influenced by these kinds of networks, what about the extraterrestrial angle? The former Canadian defense minister Paul Hellyer suggested that there may be a benevolent galactic federation, while Earth is controlled by corrupt human elites, possibly working with negative entities. Others argue the opposite—that extraterrestrial or interdimensional beings are harmful or deceptive, more like traditional demons. And then there’s the possibility that it’s all some kind of psychological or technological operation. So what do you think?Makia Freeman: I’ve studied it for a long time. I don’t think it’s just a psyop. There are too many witnesses—both from alleged ritual abuse networks and from UFO or abduction experiences. Some cases may involve secret military technology, but that doesn’t explain everything. There are documents and claims about government programs dealing with extraterrestrial phenomena—like committees formed after Roswell, MJ-12, and so on. There’s also the idea that control over this information was shifted from government to private contractors, limiting even presidential access.As for whether extraterrestrials are benevolent or not, the reports vary widely. Some describe neutral or ambiguous interactions, others negative ones. The most commonly reported beings are the greys and reptilians. Greys are often described as small, emotionless, possibly involved in hybridization programs. There are also claims—some even mentioned by public figures—that a human-alien hybrid program may be ongoing. Reptilian claims have been popularized by researchers like David Icke and others, with some witnesses claiming direct encounters. So I think it’s a real phenomenon, but complex, with multiple factors involved.Kevin Barrett: Right. I interviewed David Jacobs years ago. He concluded, based on extensive research, that something real was happening, including possible infiltration. But I remain agnostic. Hypnotic regression isn’t always reliable, and hard physical evidence is limited. As technology improves, we still don’t get clearer proof, which raises questions. So something may be happening, but it’s not fully understood.Makia Freeman: Yeah, that’s fair. Maybe when something undeniable happens, we’ll have more clarity.Kevin Barrett: Well, that’s probably a good place to leave it. If they land on the White House lawn, we’ll revisit it.Makia Freeman: Yeah, sounds good. Thanks for having me on.Kevin Barrett:Thanks for coming back. Where can people find your work?Makia Freeman: My website is thefreedomarticles.com. I’m also on Rumble, BitChute, Odyssey, Substack, Brighteon, and YouTube. I’ve written five books—my latest is The Cult of the Chosen Ones, available in print, ebook, and audiobook.Kevin Barrett: Great, I’ll include link. Thanks again.Makia Freeman: Appreciate it. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link“Top Israeli leaders rape their own daughters with snakes to bring on their messiah.” -Shoshana Strook, abuse survivor (d. March 15, age 38)“You were using biological metaphors! Biological metaphors!! To describe an entire group of human beings! That is sick! Disgusting! Uncalled for!” -Webster Tarpley, screaming at Greg Felton, author of The Host and the Parasite: How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed AmericaI well remember how, in June 2012, at the Vancouver 9/11 Hearings, Webster Tarpley unloaded on Greg Felton. We were having dinner after the conference’s final session, and Tarpley had not enjoyed the conference. He didn’t approve of topics like “no planes hit the Towers” and “9/11 may have involved extraterrestrials.” On those two issues, I saw Tarpley’s point. But what Tarpley hated most about that conference—which was organized by my friend Jim Fetzer, who enjoyed defying George W. Bush by more-than-tolerating “outrageous conspiracy theories”—was Greg Felton’s use of the host-and-parasite metaphor to describe the US-Israel relationship.Webster Tarpley is a smart guy who wrote a good book about 9/11. It’s subtitle tells us 9/11 was “Made in USA.” As he screamed at Felton, Tarpley insisted that the 9/11 truth movement had lost its way by increasingly blaming Israel. 9/11 was an inside job, Tarpley insisted. Hadn’t we spent many years copyrighting that phrase? Blaming Israel made it sound like an outside job! We were ruining our image, making ourselves look like a bunch of Nazis!I said: “Wait a minute, Webster. Your book explains how the 9/11 conspirators came in three flavors: moles, technicians, and patsies. The patsies, of course, were Muslims. But wouldn’t you agree that the moles were pro-Israel people infiltrating the US government? And wouldn’t you agree that the technicians who blew up the World Trade Center and remote-hijacked the planes were likely Israelis as well?”Webster sputtered a non-substantive answer. I pressed him: “The term ‘mole’ normally refers to an asset of one nation’s intelligence agencies who worms his way into a high position in another nation’s government. If the ‘moles’ you say did 9/11 weren’t working for Israel, which nation were they working for?” Webster’s answer: It was a “rogue network” or “invisible government” made up primarily of Americans, loyal only to their own rogue network, not to any government or nation. I cited Alan Sabrosky, the half-Jewish former Director of Strategic Studies at the US Army War College, who made headlines by coming on my radio show on March 20, 2010 saying that it was “100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation.” Sabrosky said 9/11 was such a big, complex operation that it had to have been run by one of the world’s very small number of intelligence agencies with the resources to pull such a thing off. And there were only two candidates: the CIA and Mossad. The CIA, Sabrosky said, obviously wouldn’t do such a thing as an agency. But Mossad, using its extensive network of American moles in all relevant agencies, would. Indeed, Israel benefitted massively from 9/11. No other nation did. And Israel sympathizers run the media, which was instrumental in the coverup. Figuring out who must have been behind 9/11 was not rocket science.Tarpley responded that such talk was antisemitic. He said many CIA and military insiders hate Israel and falsely blame it for all sorts of things. He said the real villains were the Nazis and the WASPS, who created secret societies and rogue networks based on white supremacist and British supremacist ideologies. In other words, according to Tarpley, it was the enemies of the Jews who carried out the gargantuan 9/11 covert operation whose only geostrategic beneficiary was Israel. The Bush family, Tarpley said, was Nazi to the core. He had written about it. Blame Bush and his family for 9/11! And Cheney was even more central!I agreed that Cheney was more central than Bush, but disagreed about the rest. What’s more, I told Tarpley, I thought Greg Felton’s “host and parasite” metaphor described the US-Israel relationship accurately. Tarpley left dinner that night disgusted with me, and with the whole conference. He appeared less frequently on my podcast after that. In 2011-2012 Tarpley was a staple on the Alex Jones show. (Alex Jones loves conspiracy theorists who blame everybody but Israel.) In 2015 Tarpley waxed rabidly anti-Trump—a position that seems reasonable in retrospect, especially given Trump’s repeated attacks on Iran. In August 2016, Tarpley was sued for $150 million by Melania Trump, who took issue with his allegations that she had worked as a “high end escort” in the 1990s. Tarpley lost the first round, then settled in February 2017, paying an “undisclosed sum of money” and making a full retraction and apology. Now that Melania’s activities working for Jeffrey Epstein are on the brink of exposure, it looks like Melania may have to repay Tarpley that “undisclosed sum.”Back in 2015, Tarpley’s rabid distaste for Trump, who he saw as a prospective American Hitler, seemed exaggerated. Today, not so much. (The comparison may in fact be unfair to Hitler.)But I still think Felton is right, and Tarpley wrong, about Israel being like a parasite sucking the vital juices out of its American host. What’s more, I just published an American Free Press article upping the ante by positing Israel as a brain-hijacking parasite. Read it below, and if it offends you, be sure to let me know in the comments. -KBIsrael Hijacks America’s BrainBy Kevin Barrett, for American Free Press The bad news: 50% of the world’s human population hosts a brain-hijacking parasite. The good news: Toxoplasma gondii, an eukaryotic protozoa, primarily hijacks the brains of mice, not people. A mouse infected by T. gondi becomes passionately fond of cats. By rewiring the mouse’s brain, T. gondi facilitates its move from its host during one stage of its life cycle—mice—to the host of the next stage: cats.T. gondi isn’t the only brain-hijacking parasite. There is also the Costa Rican mind control wasp. Its larvae hijack spiders’ brains and make the spiders spin special webs for the wasp. The larvae then kill the spider and suck its juices dry from the inside before emerging into the web-house the spider built for them.If Israel is like T. gondi, then the USA is the mouse and Iran is the cat. But most people who compare Israel to brain-hijacking parasites, as more and more Americans do, see it as a mind-control wasp. Partisans of Israel devour America from within, hijacking its brain and forcing it to behave self-destructively on behalf of Zionism.Gen. Wesley Clark revealed that 9/11, an Israeli false flag, was designed to “take out seven countries in five years.” All seven of those countries posed problems for Israel, not the United States. By terrorizing Americans on 9/11, Israel hijacked our brains and forced us into a series of self-destructive wars in the Middle East.Today, Israel seems to have hijacked Donald Trump’s brain and frog-marched him, and behind him the rest of the country, into a disastrous war on Iran. According to polls, half of the American people believe Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Epstein files. Since Jeffrey Epstein was an Israeli agent tasked with collecting blackmail material on powerful Americans, and since FBI documents tending to confirm allegations that Trump raped young girls provided by Epstein were released just a few days after the attack on Iran, and were quickly forgotten due to the war, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Trump’s brain has been hijacked by Israeli blackmailers.But Trump isn’t the only brain-hijacked American. His self-styled “Secretary of War,” Pete Hegseth, is an Israel-firster. So are other advisors including Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz, Mike Huckabee, Elise Stefanik, Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, John Ratcliffe, Stephen Miller, Sebastian Gorka, David Friedman, and Adam Boehler. About half of those people are Jews, whose brains have presumably been hijacked by tribal fanaticism since birth. But the other half are non-Jewish Americans who are acting self-destructively on behalf of a parasitical, genocidal foreign entity—an entity that despises them. How were their brains hijacked?A few Americans have been “turned” into Israeli spies. The most notorious is Jonathan Pollard, who badly damaged America by passing secrets to Israel, spent thirty years in prison, then was released by Obama to be feted as a national hero in Israel—including by America’s brain-hijacked ambassador, Mike Huckabee.But Israel also hijacks America, and gains access to its secrets, in subtler ways. Tucker Carlson recently reported that “Israeli officers have infested the Pentagon, roaming freely through the building, barging into offices and accessing classified material.” They are being given access to our secrets not by spies, but by people whose brains are so hijacked they don’t even know they’re spies.In an interview on “The Young Turks” on March 27, Trump’s former top terrorism advisor Joe Kent said: “I think most people who are kind of doing the bidding of Israel consistently, they probably don’t even view it that they’re doing what Jonathan Pollard did or they’re spying on our country…Because if you grow up deeply steeped in the culture that we’re in, especially working a lot in the Middle East and in the war on terror, you think, hey, the Israelis are our friends. And the Israelis take advantage of this. They really do. I’m sure they have more Jonathan Pollards. That wouldn’t surprise me at all. But I think the people that are actually more effective than the Pollards…in terms of just their ability to influence because of the access that we’ve given them.”In other words, Israel has eaten America’s brain. We have been brainwashed not just by the 9/11 false flag publicity stunt, but by countless Hollywood movies and TV productions and novels and textbooks and news reports and even defaced, distorted versions of the Bible, all produced by people whose primary loyalty is not to the United States of America.So when Donald Trump dodges a child-rape scandal by attacking Iran, and half the population knows he is a blackmailed traitor doing the bidding of a foreign regime and destroying America and the world, our brains are so hijacked that hardly anyone even blinks.Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link TruthJihad linkTranscript:Richie Allen:Yeah, I mentioned my guest today is a friend of the programme. He’s a terrific broadcaster and writer. You’ll find his work at kevinbarrett.substack.com. He wrote a very, very well written piece on his Substack today (“Did Trump Just Make Iran Great Again?”) which he shared with me kindly before the programme, his take on what’s gone on. Let’s welcome him back. Kevin, it’s lovely to have you back on.Good news, I think. I think you are happy. At least I think that there’s not satisfaction, but there’s relief that we didn’t see an escalation in the bombardment of Tehran and other Iranian cities last night. Is that fair to say?Kevin Barrett:Yes, Richie. Hey, it’s good to be with you. And it’s good to have some relatively good news to share for a change. So yeah, I think it’s good news.Richie Allen:You see this—and I understand why you see it as you do, and I’m going to let you explain it. I’m going to get out of your way. You see this as a complete humiliation for the American government, for the U.S. administration, and something that has empowered Iran and Iran’s allies in the region. Explain why you think so.Kevin Barrett:Well, it appears that what happened was that Netanyahu visited Trump in early to mid-February and convinced him to do this, claiming that the Israelis had it all covered, that if the United States bombed Iran, assassinated some of their top people, that they could get regime change. They could get rid of the nuclear program. They could eliminate the threat of Iran’s missile program and their drone program. And they could take down all of Iran’s allies in the region, starting with Hezbollah and including the Houthis or the Ansarullah movement in Yemen, and of course, the resistance forces in Palestine, as well as much of the military in Iraq, which is part of the so-called militias that defeated Al-Qaeda and ISIS, even as the U.S. has turned out to be supporting those terrorist groups.So anyway, that was the plan. It was supposed to totally solve Israel’s problem by getting rid of the source of what it sees as the opposition to the greater Israel project, the expansionism and genocide. And Trump swallowed it. His advisors mostly didn’t. Apparently, Hegseth was the only one who really bought it. And the rest of them sort of threw up their hands and said, well, we’re not sure this is going to work—or actually, no, this isn’t going to work.But Trump, once he gets an idea in his head, apparently it’s hard to get it out. So they went for it. And the goals that were openly stated were, of course, maximalist and unrealistic. Here’s what they said they were trying to achieve by attacking Iran: First, a regime change that has put the Shah Jr. in power, get rid of the Islamic Republic. And the second goal was to eliminate the nuclear program completely. The third goal was to eliminate Iran’s missiles and drones. And the fourth goal was to eliminate Iran’s relationship with everybody in the region. Of course, finally, they were going to destroy Iran’s navy, which means the U.S. totally controls the waters around Iran.Every one of those goals blatantly failed. The only regime change was now we’ve got a different Khamenei who’s much more of a hardliner than his father was. Plus, he’s annoyed that they murdered his family. Iran still has a nuclear program, and it’s not going to give up enrichment. So Trump’s not getting a better deal there than he would have otherwise. Iran’s missiles and drones now are much more formidable than they were before the war, because they’ve been tested and they’ve been shown to be effective and there’s no way to stop them and take them out. Iran’s allies in the region are now stronger than ever, with Hezbollah bogging down the Israelis at the border of Lebanon.And then finally, most importantly, Iran runs the Strait of Hormuz. This is an epic geopolitical shift, and it wouldn’t have happened without the war. So this war was a complete disaster for the Americans and their Israeli sponsors. The pro-Israel lobby is going ballistic about the ceasefire because they can see that it’s an admission of defeat. They would have preferred to see things continue to escalate until the whole region was destroyed. They imagine that the Messiah will come back and save them and put them in charge of the region and the world if that happens. But that’s also pretty unrealistic.So as it turns out, Iran has just raised its status and power several notches and made sure that the Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Republic that it founded will continue. It’s got more legitimacy now than ever, not just with the Iranian people, but with the whole international community that can contrast the sane, reasonable, and effective leadership in Iran with these lunatics in Washington and Tel Aviv. Overall, it’s a rare case where the good guys seem to have won at least this round.Richie Allen:Kevin, two questions on that. What is known? I mean, I could check the BBC and CNN, but I wouldn’t believe it for obvious reasons. What is known about the health of Khamenei Jr.? Because we were told earlier this week, again by the mainstream media, that he might be unconscious in a hospital. And then I heard from an Arabic source that he wasn’t, that he was well. What’s the best information we have about his well-being now?Kevin Barrett:You know, I haven’t seen any really hard evidence around that question, but he’s been putting out statements. I thought I recalled some video statements as well as written ones. And so I don’t see any reason to be particularly concerned. But again, it doesn’t even really matter that much because Iran’s leadership, especially its clerical leadership, welcomes martyrdom. And, you know, somebody else will step up if you get killed. It just makes everybody else fight that much harder.So the idea that you can somehow stop Iran by assassinating people like this is really a huge misconception and a mistake. It’s crazy that the Israelis think they can achieve anything by doing this stuff.Richie Allen:Yeah, it’s for the birds. Something that moved me—and I’m a fairly hard, I wouldn’t call myself a hack, but I’ve been doing what I do for a very long time and I have a bit of a hard heart. I think I’ve been desensitised to a lot of things, which isn’t a good thing really. But I have to say I did wipe a tear or two away yesterday when I saw thousands of Iranian people coming out to ring fence the facilities, the power stations and that.What an amazing thing that was. And this was while they probably genuinely thought there was a good chance that, you know, U.S. and Israeli jets might blow them to pieces. It was an amazing thing, that, wasn’t it?Kevin Barrett:It sure was. And it really did demonstrate that the Western media propaganda claiming that the Iranian people don’t support their government and are oppressed and are just waiting for the chance to rise up and get rid of the Islamic Republic is a bunch of nonsense. And it always has been.The Iranian government probably has a lot more support than any Western government and has had that consistently since 1979. And now we can see it. We can see that the lies coming from people like Trump and Netanyahu claiming that, oh, if we just bomb Iran, then they’re going to welcome it, they’re going to cheer it, they want us to nuke them, they want us to come liberate their women—is nonsense.You go talk to even, you know, the westernized women who don’t want to wear hijab, and you can watch lots and lots of person-on-the-street interviews with those people confirming what I learned during my eight or nine visits there from 2012 to 2019, and then once again in like 2022 or something. People there are basically patriotic, and it’s only a tiny fringe that has any interest in trying to overthrow the Islamic Republic.And so now we’ve seen that in the strongest possible way—millions of Iranians in the streets supporting their government, supporting their armed forces, and even coming out and ringing these facilities that Trump was threatening to nuke. I mean, that shows a lot of courage and a lot of devotion. And I don’t think that the West, or rather, the media, is going to be able to fool Western people any longer into believing that Iranians are oppressed and they don’t like their government.Richie Allen:Are you confident that the ceasefire will hold, that the negotiations will be conducted in good faith and that a solid agreement will come out of it? Or are you like me, and you worry about a false flag—some big event may be staged by the Israelis, may be staged by the Americans that could derail it—and we might see the bombing of Iran again and the Iranians closing down the Strait again, and the Iranians firing on U.S. facilities in the region?How confident are you about these talks which are going to, I believe, Kevin, begin in Islamabad on Friday?Kevin Barrett:Well, I think that we have more reason to be optimistic than we did in the past after earlier rounds of this war on Iran, because now the Iranians have demonstrated what they can do. And what they can do is stay even with the U.S. on the escalation ladder, and perhaps even stay ahead of the U.S. and win that war of escalation—that anything the U.S. can do, the Iranians can do something at the same scale.And so this idea that they think the Americans are going to gain something by pretending to want a ceasefire and to want to end the war, get a deal, open up the Strait of Hormuz, and then somehow launch yet another sneak attack that’s somehow going to gain something—I’m not sure how that would work, because Iran clearly controls the Strait of Hormuz. The facts on the ground—or in this case, the facts in the sea—are obvious now.That is, it’s just a piece of cake for Iran to decide who gets to come through the Strait of Hormuz and who doesn’t. And given that, it doesn’t seem that the Americans—in particular the Trump administration—have much incentive to escalate. Trump has to worry about the coming elections. If the Republicans take a bad enough defeat and Trump is reviled enough, he could easily end up getting impeached, possibly convicted and spending the rest of his life in prison, or maybe even worse.So there’s not a lot of motivation really for anybody on the American side to try to use this pause to deceive the Iranians and once again launch some kind of sneak attack. What good would that do? The Strait would close again. The Iranians have shown they didn’t even have to use all of their capabilities. They didn’t have to close the Red Sea, which their Houthi allies can do anytime they want. And they certainly didn’t have to utterly destroy the life support infrastructure of the Gulf countries that are occupied by the U.S., which they showed they can do because their rockets can outlast and penetrate air defenses.So there’s nothing in it here for the Americans. There’s really nothing in it for rational Israelis either. But there might be a few Israelis who still have this notion that if we create a big enough war, preferably World War III, that somehow Israel, with its Messiah in charge, will crawl out from the radioactive rubble, blow up the Al-Aqsa Mosque, rebuild a blood-sacrifice temple, and rule the world, and every Jew will have 2,800 non-Jewish slaves. So there is that messianic, millenarian extremist ideology out of Israel that Netanyahu sort of plays games with. He plays footsie with those people.And so those people, yeah, you never know what they might do. But I think that the chances that they’re going to blow this up and get the war going towards escalation again are lower than the chances were after the past rounds.Richie Allen:You’re listening to Kevin Barrett. Here’s my take—well, I won’t give it to you. I’ll give you the Cliff version of it. I laid it out earlier in the programme. I’ve learned that two, sometimes three things can be true simultaneously.So I absolutely believe you’re right when you talk about these lunatic Zionists and their Greater Israel Project. For me to deny that would be foolish and I’d lose any respect that I might have with my listeners. It’s absolutely bang on the money. There’s no doubt about that, that this is real. It’s an agenda that’s been there forever—well, through the 18th, 19th, 20th centuries, maybe going back further than that.But I also laid out a little bit of a theory earlier on, and that is that sometimes it helps to look at the effect rather than the rhetoric. So we know the rhetoric because you laid it out brilliantly earlier on. They said they wanted to destroy the nuclear program, whether weapons or domestic energy. They wanted to destroy the ballistic missiles and all of this stuff. That was the rhetoric.But if we look at the effect of it, the effect has been a massive global economic shock. And I make the argument quite often on this programme that this kind of disruption, these kind of crises, are not incidental—that one of the payoffs of these huge events is consolidation of power.Governments gain—somehow they gain the rights to or the justification for bringing in emergency measures. Central banks tighten control over spending, what can be spent and who gets the money. We know the huge corporations do okay, but the small competitors, the high street stores, disappear completely. There is an inflation shock that screws with everybody’s savings. Food prices go up, transport goes up.And I believe that there is a definitive and fairly visible agenda for a new way of living for humanity where we live in a kind of technocratic world where pretty much everything we do is controlled and monitored. And I see what’s happened in the last few years with the COVID thing and now the genocide in Gaza and now this terrible terrorism against Iran. And I just think—because I don’t believe Trump is making any decisions of his own volition, I think he’s a puppet—I see that what you’re saying is true. I can’t argue with it. But I also see this other thing happening, which is the impoverishment of people all over the world. And I wanted to ask your thoughts on that.Kevin Barrett:Yeah, that’s a good point, Richie. I think there’s some truth in what you’re saying about these crises being used by various forces to consolidate their power. And historically, I think we can see that with the way that booms and busts in capitalism—which are natural because bubbles blow up and then they pop—that’s just the natural ebb and flow of the psychology behind money in a capitalist society.And so that’s always been around. And then certain forces have figured out how to ride those waves and make money on them. And there’s all sorts of evidence that certain big financial powers either knew that the Great Depression was coming or even made it happen or at least made it worse and bet on it and made money on it. A little bit in the same way that somebody knew 9/11 was happening and bought put options on American and United Airlines and Morgan Stanley and these companies that were guaranteed to crash due to 9/11.So yeah, people make money and consolidate power on crises. They know that there will be crises coming, and then they sometimes manufacture their own crises or intensify other, natural crises. Naomi Klein wrote about this in The Shock Doctrine. And it was funny that she didn’t talk about 9/11, which is kind of the ultimate manufactured crisis designed to bring in dystopia.So yeah, I think there’s a fair bit of truth to what you’re saying. But I also think that in this particular case, what’s going on is not so much that there’s one group that’s trying to tighten the screws on all of humanity, although that’s possible. But what meets the eye more is that we’re going through a transition geopolitically, which is typical of periods when rising powers eclipse falling powers and reshuffle the power structure to decide who’s going to be top dog and rearrange the pecking order.There’s often some kind of a war and a crisis. We’ve seen this in the past when the U.S. eclipsed the British Empire with World War II. The British were being challenged by both Germany and Russia, but then the U.S. came out ahead after World War II and emerged with all the power and most of the gold and so on, and set up the United Nations and other institutions to operate in the American imperial interest.And that worked for a while when the U.S. still had half of the world’s GDP and owned all of the world’s gold. That changed, and now the U.S. manufactures a small fraction of what China manufactures. The global south is rising, and the U.S.-occupied Western empire is falling, and yet we still have these outmoded institutions like the Security Council at the UN and these other institutions that the U.S. created that don’t reflect the global power reality that is emerging.And so in that situation, with that mismatch between the institutional power and the real power, a huge reshuffling has to happen. And that will bring crises and economic shocks and wars. And somebody’s going to bet on those. Somebody’s going to make money on those. But I think the underlying historical process is more one of a geopolitical shuffle than sort of one particular conspiratorial force being in charge of all of the shocks and consolidating absolute power from them.Richie Allen:It’s a great answer. And there’s no winning or losing this. I don’t deal in winning or losing anyway when it comes to debates. You put that very well.I suppose for me, I just look back to, particularly from 2020 onwards, Kevin, and like you and I would have rubbed shoulders over the years with great people like Jim Mars, for example, and David Icke in particular and others, who were talking about centralized control of large swathes of the planet, of civilization, and that this was a plan going way back in time through secret societies, the Club of Rome, the round table groups, all this sort of stuff.And I used to listen to this stuff with interest and also with scepticism—it’s healthy to be sceptical and you’re absolutely right as an academic to be sceptical. But I think that when these people were telling me years ago, look, a time will come when it will become very difficult for people to own their own property, and this will be a global thing. It won’t just be a Western thing.The day will come when the technology will exist to roll out mass surveillance and control. You know, that people will be coerced and encouraged into taking medication that they don’t want all over the world, and that there might be punitive measures introduced if they don’t go along with it.I look at it and I see whatever happens—whether it’s the mass murder of Palestinians, the slaughter of people in the Middle East—that it serves these agendas as much as it does anything else. I don’t deny for a minute the reality of Iranians, people who want to live in an Islamic Republic because this is what they believe and this is what they like. I don’t deny the reality of the lunatic Zionist mentality that wants to own the entire region and to do the things you described earlier on. These are realities that people are living.But at the same time, I can see all over the world authoritarianism is on the rise everywhere, where people are being arrested for things they say, where people are being punished for thought crimes, not for actual crimes, where they’re bringing in digital currencies and telling me that I can’t go to Kevin and Rabia’s house and give you a couple of books for that old sofa that you don’t use anymore.All of this stuff, Kevin—it was creeping, now it’s stampeding. And these horrible things, these mass genocide events that we’re talking about, they accelerate these things. And that’s why I’m not stubborn in my beliefs or my worldview. I see this accelerationism towards this dystopian technocracy, and I see everything that happens feeding into it.I won’t press this point. You have the final word on that, and then I want to ask you about something else.Kevin Barrett:Yeah, I think there’s a lot of truth to that again, Richie, absolutely. I’m very frustrated by it, because I’m old school and I really hate all of this dystopian surveillance and control technology. I didn’t even have a cell phone. I had no portable phone until I moved to Morocco in the summer of 2023. And now with two-factor authentication, I have no choice. I can’t get into my websites, I can’t get into my bank accounts without having a phone.And what is a phone? It’s a tracking device that also makes phone calls. So it’s horrible. And yeah, it might as well be exactly the way you describe it, frankly.I mean, what the underlying reality is, I’m not sure. Jim Marrs thought that there were extraterrestrial gold miners who came to Earth and bred the human race and are controlling us secretly or something. And yeah, maybe that’s not impossible. And David Icke has these really interesting ideas as well, and he’s been right about various things. His book on 9/11 is quite good. So, who knows?But you could also explain this as simply a function of technology evolving, and then the way that people in power choose to use the technology—or are forced to use it to stay in power. Whoever doesn’t use it loses power. Any government that doesn’t seize the technology that’s available to mobilize its population to produce, loses. If a corporation doesn’t use the technology that’s available to mobilize its workers to produce, then those institutions—governments and corporations—lose in the Darwinian competition with other governments and corporations.People like me—if I don’t use my phone, I lose in my competition with other people who want to have bank accounts and websites. Ultimately, as the technology “advances,” whether that’s really an advance is another question, you could argue that there’s going to be a natural tendency among the so-called self-appointed Platonic guardians of each society to recognize that in a world where possibly every individual who’s clever and has access to stuff that’s pretty easily available might be able to make something really dangerous.With AI now, maybe it’s going to be a lot easier to make nukes or who knows what else. There are all sorts of rumors about what happens to people who invent “free energy” devices. Who knows if that’s true, but certainly one can see why a rational planner in power might think that we need a dystopian technology total surveillance grid, because we need to know if there’s anybody who might be sneaking into their basement building something that could melt down the entire galaxy or whatever.So you could see it as an evil plan to impose technocratic control—perhaps some extraterrestrial group or some elite human group is running it, maybe. But you could also explain it as a natural outgrowth of the technology going the way it’s going. And I don’t think it should be going that way. I think we should all say no to it. I think we need to be able to say no to new technologies the way I tried to say no to cell phones, but I’m not having any luck.Richie Allen:Civil disobedience. Final question for you today, and it’s only because it’s come up on the programme this evening. I’ve been asked by listeners about prepping, and I just tell the truth—I haven’t done any prepping. Is it something you and Rabia, looking at how dystopian things are unfolding, have you ever given any consideration to prepping?Kevin Barrett:Well, Richie, it’s funny you say that because after 9/11, we bought a lot of storable food, and enough other things that we would have had food and water and such, the basics that you would need if there were some kind of civilizational collapse.And that was when we were living in the countryside outside of Madison, Wisconsin, from 2003 through when we moved to Morocco in 2023. So we spent 20 years and were kind of moderate preppers through all those years.And when we moved to Morocco, we had all of this old food that we had to get rid of. Some of it was good enough for the food banks, and some of it just basically had to be tossed. And here in Morocco, we’re really not prepping. Been there, done that. We’re praying. We’re praying for a better future.And frankly, if things get bad enough, I think it’s going to be bad all around. So now I guess you could just say we’re praying rather than prepping.Richie Allen:Thanks for coming on today. I share your happiness—or I’d say optimism—that we didn’t see further carnage in Iran last night. I appreciate it. Kevin’s article on this is well worth a read. By the way, go to kevinbarrett.substack.com, subscribe to him there. Always interesting, great take on today’s events, or events overnight and events in the main.Best to Rabia, Kevin, and thanks again for today. We’ll speak again soon.Kevin Barrett:Hey, thanks Richie. Keep up the great work. I love your show.Richie Allen:Thank you very much, Kevin. You’re very welcome.Kevin Barrett live on The Richie Allen: Show for Wednesday.You’re not going to believe what’s happened to me in the studio. I’ve been holding my microphone during the conversation with Kevin. I don’t know if you know anything about studios, but the microphone I use sits in a shock mount, like a cradle, and it’s collapsed now. Luckily enough, I always have a spare, but I’m going to have to take a tune—and a particularly long tune, funnily enough—while I try and sort it out.It’s hilarious, actually. Just as I was speaking with Kevin, the microphone completely collapsed. Luckily enough, my fader was down. It was in the down position. And so I’ve been holding it. You can hear me holding it—it’s very noisy. Jesus.I’m not going to tell you—it’s a Neumann U87, by the way. Of course, only the best for the BBG. Music from Bob Dylan while I try to make running repairs. If only there was a webcam. Yes, if there was a webcam, you’d be able to see the state of me right now. This really looks like amateur radio, this.13 and a half past six. Music from Bob Dylan on The Richie Allen: Show.The time is coming up for 18 minutes past six. Thanks again to Kevin Barrett and to Neutral365.com. I’ve had a bit of malfunction here in studio and I can’t fix it easily, so I’m just going to have to call it a day, really. Sorry about that. It’s going to take me about 15, 20 minutes to sort it out, so there’s not much point to me coming back.I think we’ve had the news roundup and we had a good chat with Kevin. I think that’s going to have to be it for today. Sorry about that. The programme will be back tomorrow at five o’clock UK time for Thursday’s edition of The Richie Allen: Show.And it’s never happened to me before, this. It’s hilarious—just a big collapse of a shock mount. It’s just broken in pieces. The microphone is all over the place. I’m holding on to it. It’s going to take a bit of time to fix. Nothing I can do about it.So look, thanks for listening today. Sorry for the early bath. Sincere apologies. We will do it again tomorrow, as I said, at five. Thanks again to Kevin Barrett. It’s truthjihad.com—that’s his website—and kevinbarrett.substack.com.Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link TruthJihad linkJim Hogue’s radio program, “House at Pooh Corner”, where he interviewed Daniel Ellsberg and many other whistle-blowers, lasted for 29 years on WGDR-FM (91.1) in Plainfield, Vermont…until Hogue criticized Israel for genocide and got canceled. He now has a television program by the same name with ORCA Media in Montpelier, VT, for which he just interviewed me. Watch the interview above, or scroll down for the transcript. And speaking of people being forced out of American institutions for speaking truth to power: A lawyer looking into 9/11-related academic freedom cases emailed me with Grok’s version of my 2006 academic freedom fight at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The original Grok account was inadequate, as I explained:That account is incomplete and selective. It seems designed to downplay the fact that I was informally banned from the American academy due to pressure from politicians (and behind them, the ADL and ACTA).In fact, I did apply for many academic positions, including at least two at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, after my semester of teaching under fire ended in December 2006, and was always turned down. Prior to the scandal, I had basically never been turned down for any academic position for which I had applied at UW-Madison between 1995 and 2006.I was directly told by Professor Muhammad Memon, and later also by his secretary who was present in department meetings, that the Asian Studies Department, which had hired me to teach Introduction to Islam in 2006, had been ordered by the university administration not to hire me for Fall 2007 (and presumably thereafter).The Grok account deceptively focuses on the fact that I did not apply for the Intro to Islam position for Spring 2007 (I had already lined up a teaching position at Madison College that semester) while ignoring that I did indeed apply for that same UW-Madison Islam position for Fall 2007. As I recall, I submitted that application in the winter of 2007, when the Asian Department met and ultimately chose to hire a less-qualified instructor because, as Professor Memon told me, it was ordered by the administration not to hire me.Additionally, in spring 2006 I was turned down for a tenure-track Islam and Humanities job at University of Wisconsin-Whitewater “illegally and purely due to my political views—you were discriminated against” as then-Dean of Humanities Howard Ross told me. Dr. Ross said the hiring committee judged me the best of the three finalists, and was in the final stages of hiring me when a higher-up (I think it was the university president or provost) ordered them not to hire me due to my “screwy views about 9/11.” According to Dr. Ross, the University was forced to return a half-million dollar grant to the federal government and close the position and claim there was no qualified applicant.The same thing happened when I applied to a similar federally-funded Islam and Humanities position at the University of Illinois in 2007. Despite being eminently qualified, with an Islamic Studies related Ph.D. and professional experience teaching Humanities, I was again turned down, and the university closed the position, claimed there were no qualified applicants, and returned the money to the feds.Between 2007 and 2010 I applied for numerous academic jobs in the US for which I was highly qualified and was always turned down, except once when I was hired at the somewhat dubious Kaplan University in Milwaukee by an African guy who didn’t understand the nuances of politically-based informal bannings-from-academia. When he left that job and an American replaced him, the replacement googled me, panicked, and let me know I shouldn’t apply for the following year.So the narrative that “the University of Wisconsin respected my academic freedom by allowing me to finish teaching the fall 2006 semester” is a half truth at best, since it ignores the fact that I was subsequently informally blacklisted from the American academy, as any honest academician familiar with the case will admit.KevinAfter feeding in corrections, the next Grok version was better: From Grok:Publicly available information on Kevin Barrett largely aligns with the key elements of the account you described, while also showing the university’s public rationale for its decisions.badgerherald.comBarrett, who holds a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from UW-Madison, taught the one-semester course “Islam: Religion and Culture” (Introduction to Islam) in Fall 2006 as a part-time lecturer in the Department of Languages and Cultures of Asia (then Asian Studies). His public 9/11 views (that the attacks were an “inside job”) triggered intense external pressure: more than 60 Wisconsin state legislators signed petitions/letters demanding his firing, Rep. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) was especially vocal, and groups including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) criticized the university. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) also weighed in on the broader debate. UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell reviewed Barrett’s syllabus, past evaluations, and assurances that he would separate personal views from classroom instruction, ultimately allowing him to complete the semester on academic-freedom grounds. The university repeatedly framed this as respecting academic freedom while emphasizing that Barrett’s contract was for one semester only.news.wisc.eduContemporary news coverage and Barrett’s own public statements (including a 2008 discrimination complaint and later writings) confirm he applied for additional UW-Madison positions after December 2006 but was turned down:* He did not apply for the Spring 2007 Intro to Islam slot (the course was not offered then, and he had lined up a position at Madison College).* He did apply for the same Intro to Islam position for Fall 2007. The department hired another candidate (Akile Zorlu-Durukan). Acting chair Uli Schamiloglu stated publicly that the five-member committee chose the strongest applicant based on qualifications and teaching style; Barrett’s political views were not a factor. Barrett has publicly stated that the late Prof. Muhammad Umar Memon (the regular instructor who was on sabbatical in 2006 and served on the hiring committee) and Memon’s secretary told him the administration had ordered the department not to rehire him.* He was also denied a 300-level English course (Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales) in the UW-Madison English department in 2007; the university cited stronger candidates.In January 2008, Barrett filed a discrimination complaint with the Madison Equal Opportunities Commission against both UW-Madison and UW-Whitewater, alleging he had been blacklisted due to his political/9/11 views. He explicitly named then-Dean of Humanities Howard Ross at UW-Whitewater as a witness. According to Barrett’s public accounts (including interviews and his Substack), Ross told him he had been the top finalist for a federally funded tenure-track “Islam and Humanities” position in spring 2006; the hiring committee was overruled by higher administration because of his “screwy views about 9/11,” the university returned a half-million-dollar federal grant, and the position was closed with the claim that no qualified applicant existed. Ross later appeared on Barrett’s radio show as a whistleblower. The complaint also referenced the UW-Madison Islam position denial. The Equal Opportunities Commission noted it lacked jurisdiction over UW System hiring.Barrett has similarly described being turned down for a comparable federally funded Islam/Humanities position at the University of Illinois in 2007 (position closed, grant returned). Between 2007 and 2010 he applied for numerous academic posts for which he considered himself highly qualified and was almost always rejected—except for a temporary lecturer role at Kaplan University in Milwaukee (roughly 2008–2009), where he says the initial African administrator was unaware of the controversy; after that person left and an American took over, he was told not to reapply once his background was Googled. His CV (public on Academia.edu) reflects limited post-2006 academic teaching.ma.linkedin.comIn short, the public record shows the UW system respected academic freedom enough to let Barrett finish the Fall 2006 semester amid heavy political pressure (including from politicians and groups such as the ADL), but it does not contradict his claim that subsequent applications were unsuccessful. University spokespeople consistently attributed the denials to other candidates being better qualified; Barrett and named insiders (Memon, Ross) have publicly maintained the decisions were driven by political blacklisting. No independent investigation or court ruling appears to have resolved the competing accounts, and the Equal Opportunities Commission complaint did not proceed on jurisdictional grounds. This context is documented in contemporaneous reporting (Badger Herald, 2007–2008), UW-Madison archives, and Barrett’s own public statements.The lawyer showed that result and asked “Do you think I can claim that actions against you influenced other professors to not engage in 911 research and opinion?: I responded:This Grok result is much better, indeed surprisingly good. My only quibble is that I doubt very much that university spokespeople ever claimed that I was turned down at UW-Whitewater or UW-Madison for Islam positions because other applicants were more qualfied. That would be a blatant falsehood, and I doubt they would lie that baldly. At UW-Whitewater, as documented by then-Dean Howard Ross, I was not only unanimously chosen as the best of the three finalists, but that after that choice had been made, the committee learned that the other two applicants had accepted positions eleswhere. So there was no “better qualified applicant” available, and the position was closed and the federal funds returned to Washington because I was deemed politically unacceptable.Likewise, at UW-Madison, the person hired to teach Introduction to Islam in fall 2007 was a graduate student with little or no prior teaching experience, whereas I was a Ph.D. holder with extensive teaching experience and very high ratings, including for that very class. Muhammad Memon specifically said that I was clearly far more qualified than any other applicants, but that the university administration insisted that I could not be hired due to the national controversy over my 9/11 views.And regarding the University of Illinois Islam and Humanities position, there was clearly no “better qualified applicant” because that position, like the similar position at UW-Whitewater, was closed and the money returned to Washington, with the excuse that there were “no qualified applicants.”Please ask Grok to try to find any documentation that any of the three university administrations ever falsely claimed that there were more qualified applicants for any of those three Islamic Studies positions! I doubt very much it will find any. It may find that kind of statement regarding some other position, such as an English Department job I applied for at UW-Madison at some point, but that is irrelevant.One more thing: Of course actions against me driven by ACTA, the ADL, Fox News, and the Wisconsin Republican Party discouraged other professors from engaging in 9/11 research and activism!!! That was the whole reason they manufactured the scandal in the first place.BestKevin—-Jim Hogue interviews Kevin BarrettInterviewer:Hello, everybody. Here we are again at the house at Pooh Corner with Dr. Kevin Barrett, whom I have known for about 35 years, I would say, on and off since 9/11 happened. We were in the forefront of 9/11 truth, and in a manner of speaking, still are, I guess.So he’s living in Morocco now and has a wonderful website and a Substack or podcast—do you call it? I can’t remember which is which.Barrett:Yeah, Substack.Interviewer:Okay. Do you want to tell people what it is now and then we’ll remind them and hopefully get it up on the screen later?Barrett:Yeah, sure. It’s kevinbarrett.substack.com. But you can find your way there easily by going to truthjihad.com. And that’s all run together, too—the word “truth” and the word “jihad,” right? So truthjihad.com, and you can find your way to the Substack there.Interviewer:All right. And, well, let’s just start out with asking Dr. Barrett to tell us how he ended up in Morocco and a little bit about his activism, which has been in the forefront of activism from all my heroes. So go for it, Kevin. Tell us a little about yourself here.Barrett:Well, thanks, Jim. Yeah, I don’t really think of myself that much as an activist these days. I’m more of an engagé writer. That’s what the French used to call politically impassioned writers, often critics of aspects of their governments and stuff.I kind of knew I was a writer since high school. I’ve enjoyed humor and satire, as well as other kinds of writing. I ended up studying literature, which is where almost all the good writing is. I collected four advanced degrees in literature—in French, English, African and North African studies, Arabic, and Islamic studies.So I was an academic. I was thinking that most of my work would be on North African studies and on medieval Moroccan Sufism and things like that. And so there I was at the turn of the millennium at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, where I finished my Ph.D. in 2004.So I was teaching there, and of course right at the beginning—actually end of 2003—I heard David Ray Griffin was writing a book that would be coming out several months later called The New Pearl Harbor. David Ray Griffin was one of my heroes before that. He was one of the smartest people in religious studies.What he was doing was not even really religious studies in a normal sense. He was the best guy you could go to to be the arbiter of empirical disputes, often scientific ones. He was a brilliant man. He gained a reputation for being able to host a conference on a very difficult scientific subject—let’s say the Big Bang theory. Is the Big Bang theory correct or not? One group of scientists says yes, one says no.So David Ray Griffin would put together a seminar at Claremont College of California, and people would come and argue this. He would be able to digest the pertinent arguments on both sides in like six months of intense reading and host the conference and be totally knowledgeable. A really smart guy.So I knew about him already. And when I heard that he was going to argue that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it wasn’t a hijacked plane, and that the buildings in New York had been blown up with explosives, I said, wow. I mean, I knew 9/11 was kind of fishy, but I didn’t know it was—if David Ray Griffin is saying this, I’d better look into it.So I looked into it, and sure enough, yeah, it was obvious. I was just shocked—not so much that insiders would do this, but that they would do it so badly and make it so obvious, and then the media would totally cover it up. That was shocking.I already knew about the JFK assassination problem since high school, so I wasn’t naïve or anything, but still this was pretty shocking. So at that point I started doing info-activism at the University of Wisconsin—teach-ins and things like that—while teaching classes.I stayed there probably a year or two longer than I normally would have to do that. I just kept teaching religious studies, Intro to Islam, and I think a folklore class, things like that.So then in 2006 things really were picking up. We’d had some success in the 9/11 Truth movement. I had put together what was at that time the best event for 9/11, which was David Ray Griffin’s talk at the University of Wisconsin in April 2005, which was broadcast on C-SPAN and provided the first big national coverage for 9/11 truth, and very sympathetic coverage.So I kind of got roped into being one of the people in the 9/11 Truth movement that was notable. And so then in 2006 the pushback happened. They needed to try to demonize the scholars for 9/11 truth, which at that point had rounded up more than 100 professors who were all saying basically what David was saying about 9/11.So they had to attack somebody, and they picked me. That was probably because I’m Muslim—I converted to Islam in 1994—so that made it easier to demonize me to the Fox News audience. And I didn’t have tenure and I didn’t have any financial security, so I was an easy guy to pick on, they thought.So they invited me—well, first they got me onto a big mainstream radio show in Wisconsin and kind of ambushed me about what I was going to be teaching in my class that fall. I mentioned that it’s an Intro to Islam class, 16 weeks, only one week is going to be about the War on Terror, and a little bit of that is going to be about 9/11. I’m going to present all the perspectives—the mainstream perspective, the neocon perspective, and the Muslim majority perspective.And the majority of the world’s Muslims and the majority of Muslims in the United States at that time believed that 9/11 was a false flag, so I was going to include that as one of the perspectives. But when I teach those kinds of things, I wouldn’t be putting my own opinion out there—I’d just be showing what different groups say.So anyway, I said that on the radio show and they spun that as, “Oh, he’s going to be teaching 9/11 conspiracy theories.” And the next thing you know, the Republicans were calling for me to be fired from my job at the university.So this scandal broke out in early July 2006, and I was quickly invited onto Fox News to argue with Sean Hannity. And I did, and that went viral. Everybody loved it—truthers, non-truthers, or just bystanders who’d never heard there was even a controversy.So that made me really toxic. The media descended on the university. My Intro to Islam class that fall, which should have had maybe 20 or 30 students, went up to almost 200. I had to cap it because of the controversy.CNN and other media outlets spent that whole semester hanging out in my classroom, sometimes filming. And the controversy just kept popping up. I actually milked some of that—I deliberately cited controversies week by week sometimes because I thought the more publicity the issue got, the better.So I did that for six months, and the university couldn’t fire me because they did a big investigation and found I wasn’t really doing anything wrong. But the Republicans kept pushing, and the controversy lasted six months.When it was over, I had this internet paper trail, and I was basically unemployable. The day I went on Fox News, the engineering school at the University of Wisconsin–Madison lost more than half a million dollars in canceled contributions. Donors were pulling funding and pressuring the university.So basically since then I’ve been writing, broadcasting, and becoming an independent critical intellectual—which is what I always thought you were supposed to do in universities, but apparently it doesn’t really work that way.Interviewer:Well, I was thinking of the different bases that we had both touched along our paths. I had worked a little bit with Dr. Griffin, and he told me that he had written 23 books on religion by the time 9/11 hit. Then he started writing several books about 9/11. He wrote one on Christianity and 9/11—you’ve probably read all of them.Barrett:Yeah, I own that book. It’s a great book.Interviewer:Yeah, I have it. And he said that even though it was essentially a religious text on what Christians ought to be doing, his publisher of 23 books refused to publish it. That actually shocked him.So we’ve been touching base with these entities that have gotten their knickers in a twist because of those of us who have been advocating 9/11 truth. At a certain point along the way, I realized that the final sticking point—and the reason why they always sent a hatchet man in—was because there was a connection with Mossad.That hit me later, because I didn’t realize that until the dancing Israelis were caught in New Jersey and thrown in jail, and Chertoff got them out and sent them back to Israel. I thought, what other connections could there be?As I learned more, I realized that if you took too many steps toward the truth of 9/11, you would run into Mossad. Once I realized that, I talked about it with Richard Gage and others. They were hesitant to go near that, but I did get Gage to acknowledge certain details that I had seen.Now that we have the current level of antagonism, and you’re allowed to talk about some things more openly, I’ve had my own experiences. I got kicked off the air some years ago for criticizing Israel.That’s part of my experience of running into hostility—nothing like what you went through at the university, but it’s certainly out there. And Stephen Jones—the one who did the thermite work—he got run out of the university as well.Barrett:Yeah, Steven Jones.Interviewer:So wherever we got anywhere with it, there were always gatekeepers in the way. And as I said, I finally figured out that you didn’t have to go too far with 9/11 truth to run into that particular issue.Barrett:Yeah, yeah, I agree. And actually, in September 2001 when it happened, the first thought I had—and this was very common among people in Middle Eastern studies and Arabic—was that Israel would be a major beneficiary.We all kind of thought that, but we also knew you weren’t really allowed to talk about it in public because of political pressures. So when I looked into it more deeply later, I saw that there was clearly a large-scale domestic cover-up in the United States involving elements of the military, intelligence community, and government.So it went beyond any one country. But it was also obvious that certain geopolitical outcomes benefited particular actors.And I think the problem is that people often know things but feel they can’t say them. That leads to self-censorship. When that goes on long enough, it affects how people think.As Voltaire said, people who believe absurdities commit atrocities.And we’ve seen a series of wars and destructive policies follow from that. It raises questions about how major geopolitical decisions are made and who benefits from them.And what’s striking is how a large and powerful country can end up making decisions that seem self-destructive. That’s something people struggle to understand.And it leads to questions like: how can the world’s most powerful country be influenced in ways that lead it into these kinds of actions—by a much smaller country, a population of what, nine million people, six and a half million Jews?What’s with that? How can the world’s most powerful country be hijacked by this small, last little settler colonial entity on Earth?Interviewer:I mean, how did that happen? It’s just very strange. Well, I have a feeling that you have the answer. But before we get to that, I wanted to mention that I’m glad you gave me your perspective from the point of view of those people who were aware of the geopolitics in that region.Because when I first saw Leslie Clark talk about those seven countries, my conclusion had nothing to do with Israel in my naivete, but I wasn’t totally naive because they all had something else in common, which was they weren’t connected to central banks. They weren’t connected to the Western banking debt money system. In fact, it was considered a sin, right? In the Muslim world, it was considered usury.Barrett:Yeah, I’m not sure that’s entirely true. I would have to look more closely at the details of every one of those seven countries.Interviewer:Oh, yeah. Okay. I’m just confessing that that’s where my mind went, was that it had to do with the banking system, because if you look at the, you know, the French got all wigged out about it, the British certainly, the City of London, and they seem to be all on board with these seven countries.And I couldn’t think of why other than they had given the bird to that central banking system. And so I’m glad that you have said that there was at least a geopolitical coterie of people who realized right from the get-go that it was Israel who was benefiting, and now I can make certain connections.Having heard what you just said, now I can make certain connections, and relating that to the banking world as well.So can we leap to, maybe our listeners will either forgive us or enjoy what we think is happening right now, and why that is an example, a carry-through, if you will, of the 9-11 attacks?So many things have happened since 9-11 that point to someone like Netanyahu and his gang behind them that for years, again, we’re not allowed to mention that. And if I mentioned it on the radio, I would get calls, well, why would you say that? They aren’t killing that many people in Gaza. It’s not a genocide. They’re not killing enough people. I got all this crap from people who just wouldn’t admit what was happening.But now I’m happy to say it’s out, you know, if Tucker Carlson making a big deal of it and being attacked viciously, supposedly you wrote the article, you just wrote a piece about it about him being attacked by the FBI for supporting America.It’s out, and you’re allowed to talk about it. And so where do you think we’re gonna go, given that it’s out, especially now that Israel doesn’t have any water as of last night?Barrett:Well, I haven’t looked into the details of the desalination plants that are being hit by Iranian rocket fire, so I’m not up on that.But in terms of where we are, in terms of this 9/11 war on the countries that are a problem for Israel, well, yeah, they’re finally going after country number seven on the list, which is Iran. Iran was always number seven, the last and most important. And that’s what General Clark heard, that Iran was the last on the list.And they originally intended it to be seven countries in five years. That’s what they told Clark. And clearly they’re way behind schedule in terms of Iran anyway.So why is that? And I think the answer is, of course, partly that the people of Iraq bravely fought back. And all the people of Afghanistan put up a good fight. So there’s been resistance to this project.But I think that the single biggest reason that it took them 25 years instead of five years to get around to trying to destroy Iran is that what happened was that the neocons, who are 100% Israel firsters, were perfectly happy to destroy the United States. They could care less about it. They hate the United States, actually.Netanyahu hates the United States. He was recorded at Fink’s bar in Jerusalem saying something like, oh, we hate America, and we’re going to just squeeze it dry and then throw it away, and so on and so forth. Well, that quote is actually authentic. If you Google it on the Internet, they’ll tell you that it’s not a real quote or a documented quote. But I actually talked to the guy who recorded it, Colonel Jim Henke, who was a U.S. military attaché in Israel at the time, and he recorded Netanyahu saying that. And he confirmed to me, I spoke to him on Skype, he confirmed to me that it was authentic.So anyway, yeah, the extreme neocons, the Netanyahu wing, those people hate the United States.So what happened after 9-11 was that you had those people who were the really hardcore messianic millenarian nut job Israel firsters. And then you had the realists within the American foreign policy establishment who didn’t really get the memo that these crazy genocidal Israeli maniacs run everything now, right?So those people, the realists, they said, yeah, they looked into it and they said, wait a minute, I mean, we just ran this huge war games exercise Millennium Challenge in like 2002 or whatever, and it showed that Iran wins. We can’t, the U.S. cannot wage war against Iran, we’ll lose.They’ve got all these ways that they could defend themselves. You know, it’s a natural fortress. They’ve got that control, you know, they’ve got a great spot overlooking the Strait of Hormuz, and they can use all kinds of unconventional techniques to pin us down and basically thwart anything that we do.So that was the result of the Millennium Challenge exercise. General Van Riper, maybe he was a colonel, whatever he was, Van Riper ran the Iranian side and he won.And so in the wake of that and other similar analyses, the realists in the American foreign policy establishment determined that an American war on Iran would be suicide for the United States. And even if they liked Israel, some of those people actually were pro-Israel, very strongly pro-Israel people, but they recognized that destroying the United States, having Iran defeat the United States, would not be good for Israel either. It wouldn’t be good for anybody.So they pushed back. And so the crazies kept trying to get America to run. And then the not quite so crazies kept pushing back against it.And this came to a head in 2007, when the crazies had a toehold in Dick Cheney’s office, and they were plotting a false flag. They were going to sink an American ship in the Persian Gulf off Bahrain, and they were going to blame the Iranians and their proxies in the region. And that was going to launch a big U.S. attack on Iran.Gwyneth Todd, who is the top advisor to the admiral in charge of the Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, heard about this and was horrified. And so she leaked it to the Security Council. She’d been on the National Security Council before that. She leaked it to some National Security Council people.They, of course, were, like her, horrified. And so they pulled the plug on those people who were going to do that. But Gwyneth Todd then ended up with, you know, she had to flee for her life. And she was married to an Australian military officer, and she had to basically disappear to the Australian outback in the protection of her military officer husband.And as last I heard, she’s still been living out there, and, you know, she’s gotten some death threats. She had a rattlesnake in her mailbox once.Anyway, but she actually stopped what would have been a war in Iran in 2007. And if you Google around, you’ll find some interesting stuff, Washington Post article about this and stuff. It doesn’t quite give you the straight story that I just gave you.But anyway, so they’ve been pushing for this war in Iran forever. And again, the crazies want to do it because they’re crazy, and then the knowledgeable people say, no, this is suicidal, we can’t do that.And I’d like to remind people—Interviewer:Trump was groomed to be crazy.Barrett:Yeah.Interviewer:Oh, yeah.Barrett:Well, he’s a diehard, supposedly he’s a diehard Zionist because he’s admitted it. I mean, he has said it. And he’s been around people who are Israel firsters. So we know that.Interviewer:I wanted to say the word “crazies.” This is not a word that Dr. Barrett has invented. This is a word that the CIA used to refer to the hardcore neocons, right?Barrett:Well, I thought it was actually G. H.W. Bush who talked about the neocons being the crazies in the basement, right?Interviewer:Yes, yes. But I meant everybody used that term. I’m not saying—it’s not a conspiracy theorist term. It’s a term that everybody in Washington used to refer to people like, you know, the gang, Wolfowitz and…And Ray McGovern always referred to them—I met Ray shortly after 9-11—and he referred to them as the crazies.So that is who was more influential than many over the years, and they’re still—they won. I mean, they won.Barrett:Yeah, and it’s funny. They couldn’t do it during Trump’s first term. They tried. They were hoping that killing Soleimani would start a war with Iran, and only great Iranian restraint prevented that.And then when they got Trump back into office in 2024, I think they managed to surround him with even goofier people than they had in his first term.And so, you know, Trump’s got like Pete Hegseth, an alcoholic, former Fox News host covered with tattoos. And just listen to that guy. I mean, I’m surprised he was smart enough to even be on Fox, which, you know, isn’t saying that much.And then Witkoff and Kushner. I mean, those two, you know, those are like, you know, just, you know, New York Jewish slumlords.A couple of New York Jewish slumlords who belong to Chabad Lubavitch, which is a psychotic end of the world Jewish extremist cult that wants to basically blow everything up so that the Messiah will come and conquer the world for the Jews.This is a bizarre cult, messianic cult, Chabad Lubavitch. And both Kushner and Witkoff have no credentials whatsoever to be even negotiating on behalf of the local dog pound.They’re just slumlords. They’re a couple of mafiosi Jewish slumlords. The only reason they have money is because they’re willing to do scummy things, and then they have this ethnic network of criminals to help support them.So that’s why these sub-two-digit IQ people are able to make a lot of money, people like Kushner and Witkoff.And so Trump, who’s himself not the brightest bulb in the pack, to say the least, appoints those two guys and guys like Hegseth. They’ve got like a quorum of these morons, just total morons, and Trump being one himself.And so that’s how they got the quorum here to go ahead and commit national suicide by attacking Iran.And so here we are, and this is probably gonna end the U.S. empire and create untold economic havoc ultimately in the United States as well as elsewhere.And when the smoke clears, that’s all she wrote for the U.S. petrodollar.And so I think people might want to be putting some of their savings into gold, silver, and possibly Chinese currency at this point.Interviewer:I remember I wrote to you not long ago as though I were Trump. And I said, well, give me a break. My whole life, all my friends have been villains and thieves. And at my time of life, I should start turning over new leaves, which is a line from Oliver.So that those people who think that Trump appeared out of nowhere—well, if you read Whitney Webb’s books, he was surrounded by Cohn. What was Cohn’s first name? Roy Cohn.Barrett:Yeah.Interviewer:Roy Cohn and that gang of thieves that kept him afloat.Barrett:Yeah, and the rest of the real estate mob and the professional wrestling mob. That was Trump’s gang. Epstein, of course, was one of them.Interviewer:And so why would you expect a lot more? I expected a lot more from Trump, I admit, because the mainstream went after him. That’s enough reason for me.And the Democrats told all these lies about him—Russia, Russia, Russia. They threw the kitchen sink at him to get you to believe whatever they wanted you to believe about him.And they tried to throw him in jail. They tried to take all his money. And I said, well, the guy must be okay if the mainstream is doing that to him.Barrett:Yeah, there were moments when I thought along those lines too. But I think in retrospect, it’s pretty clear that a lot of the bad publicity that Trump was getting was actually, you know, so bad it’s good.And it was designed to be so bad it’s good. That is, the way they went after him, I think, to some extent, some of it was calibrated in such a way as to help him rather than hurt him.If they want to hurt you, they can. There are ways that… well, for instance…Just one really obvious thing is that when Trump ran in 2016, the story of his rape of 13-year-old Katie was totally out there. She did her deposition, I think, in 2015. I think it was even before Trump was elected, as I recall.She filed the lawsuit against Trump. She was an Epstein sex slave and Trump just brutally raped her. And that story is 100% credible.Now the Epstein files have basically confirmed it. There’s a lot more information now that’s come out, that there were corroboratory witnesses, that the FBI took it very seriously and so on.So that was all there back in 2015, and for some reason that never got any play in the mainstream media.So rather, you know, the mainstream media did, you know, said, oh, he said something about grab them by their whatever, their private parts, do this.You know, the mainstream media went after Trump in these areas where it actually wasn’t going to kill him with the people who were going to vote for him.Had they gone full bore after Katie’s story, two things would happen. One, she and all of the witnesses and the FBI people would all end up dead. That’s possible.But more likely, I think Trump’s whole campaign would have been taken down.But the people who run and own the mainstream media in the United States are Jewish Zionist billionaires. And they’re acting in a coordinated fashion to a certain extent. And they do exert a certain amount of control about what the people employed in their organizations are allowed to go after.And so they can say, no, no, Katie, forget Katie, this other stuff. OK.And so even the most ferocious anti-Trump person working for, say, The New York Times has to keep that in mind and like, OK, well, I’ll just yell and scream at Trump about these other things, about this, that, and the other. But I guess I can’t do this Katie thing. Management is saying don’t go there for whatever reason, and I’ll be fired or worse.And so, you know, I think the media is not genuinely as anti-Trump as it appears to be.Interviewer:OK, well, I’m glad you mentioned that, because I always said that the Democrats have a lot on Trump if they want to use it. And they didn’t.And I’m thinking, OK, you’ve got Russiagate, you’ve got these fake lawsuits, you’ve got everything. So why don’t they actually do something that could hurt him?And you have just explained why that is and how it worked.And I did understand how The New York Times is—I wrote a piece about that for Three Sages, I don’t know if you’ve heard of them.Barrett:Yeah, yeah, sure.Interviewer:And I explained what happens when The New York Times says something and to whom are they speaking, to whom is The New York Times speaking when it writes something.And I explained Congress, influencers around the country, and why everybody says exactly the same thing, you know, all the talking heads where they say exactly the same thing. They get their permission from The New York Times.And what you said about the initial lies about 9/11, they were so obvious to me that anybody with half a brain at least could see that.Like the passport that fell on the ground—stuff like that. I finally figured out that it was to inform Congress and everybody on their important influencer list that yes, 9/11 was a false flag, but don’t mention it.If they’re pushing the passport thing and a few of the other lies that were so obvious, it’s to inform people what they are supposed to be thinking and what they are supposed to be saying and what they are supposed to be doing, because they were such obvious lies.Barrett:Yeah, yeah. I got the sense that, for instance, Senator Barbara Boxer, who was one of the senior senators in the United States after 9/11, actually totally knew the score.I got her to say something outrageous on Wisconsin Public Radio in, I think it was 2005. That was when Anthony Schaeffer was studying the Able Danger scandal, which was that military intelligence had identified these guys that were later blamed as supposed 9/11 hijackers.They identified them long before 9/11.Interviewer:Yes.Barrett:Including Muhammad Atta. And so Colonel Anthony Schaeffer, who was going to go after those guys, was then told not to. He said, put a yellow sticky over his face on your chart, on your wall, and forget that you ever heard of Muhammad Atta. He was told that ahead of 9/11. So this scandal was breaking. Anyway, I called up Wisconsin Public Radio when Barbara Boxer was being interviewed, and I said, “Senator Boxer, you may have heard of this Abel Danger scandal involving the alleged 9/11 hijackers who had access to secure US military facilities in Florida and other states, who were regular guests at the Officers Club—I forget which military base—who were given access to large amounts of cash and cocaine by parties unknown, partied on Jack Abramoff’s casino boats, and so on. And so, given what we know about these hijackers, do you support Congressman Weldon’s push for a new investigation of Able Danger?”Interviewer: And then Barbara Boxer said?Dr. Barrett: She said, “Well, what you just said, it’s not what the 9/11 Commission said, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.”Interviewer: You mean, you mean, well, you said Weldon?Dr. Barrett: Weldon—Kurt Weldon was the congressman who was threatening to investigate Able Danger and then was later railroaded out of Congress for it. So she said, “Yeah, that’s not what the 9/11 Commission said, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. My first priority is to end the war in Iraq, and then we need a real investigation of 9/11.” So that floored me. I wrote that up and stuff. So yeah, I think she obviously knew.Later, this was confirmed by Four Arrows, a.k.a. Don Jacobs, who was a professor in Arizona who, like me, sort of ended up run out of the country because he was telling the truth about 9/11 or seeking the truth. He had a friend who was a senior advisor to Senator Boxer, and he also wrote a book along with Jim Fetzer on the assassination of Paul Wellstone. Barbara Boxer at one point told this guy, a friend of Four Arrows who was her advisor, she turned to her advisor and said, “You know, you tell your friend that he doesn’t know how right he is about Wellstone. They killed Wellstone, and that was a message to us all. Please don’t quote me, because if I’m quoted, I will have to deny this.”The last line in one of the chapters I wrote in the book I’m writing now, my sequel to RAC, was: note to self: avoid trips in small planes. Right, because there are a lot of them. Well, Wellstone—that was really very nasty, right? Wellstone was pushing, you know, he was a 9/11 skeptic, and he was right out front about trying to block the Iraq war. And they murdered him. They took his plane down and killed him, his wife, his daughter, and his entire campaign staff.They went after Cynthia McKinney, but they didn’t kill her because they didn’t have to. Sometimes they just get you thrown out of Congress. Maybe that’s because they were plotting to kill her and something went wrong, and they didn’t get the shot at her. So plan B went into effect. I think, like with Kennedy—you know, I don’t know if you probably read the wonderful book by James Douglas, The Assassination. I interviewed him. He points out that they were going to shoot at Kennedy in Miami. They had a plan to kill him in Miami, and then that got called off because they didn’t have all their pieces in place. Then they had Dallas next, and then Chicago. If he survived Dallas, or if they had to hold the plug on the Dallas shoot, then they were going to get him in Chicago. That’s how they do these things—they have all of these contingency plans.So the fact that Cynthia McKinney happens to be alive and Paul Wellstone happens to be dead is partly because Wellstone was a bigger threat. But it could also be that they just got lucky with Wellstone. Everything fell into place, and they were able to do it. Maybe they were planning to try to get Cynthia at some point, but they never got their pieces in place. The cost-benefit ratio never rose to the level they wanted. The press did its job, so they didn’t have to kill her. The press made her look stupid. It was easier for them to bribe some Capitol security guard to start a fight with her. They made her look like a crazy person from their point of view, so they didn’t have to kill her. What they did was bribe some security guard at the Capitol to attack her physically. If she fought back, then they put out the story that she had supposedly attacked the security guard.I met her here; I interviewed Cynthia McKinney a couple of times. I didn’t interview Paul Wellstone, but his son is—what’s the matter with me? The senator from Texas, Ron Paul. I interviewed Ron Paul a couple of times. He balked, of course, at 9/11 Truth, but he congratulated us, those of us working on it. I thought that was a nice touch. A lot of these people know that 9/11 Truth is the third rail. So either they don’t talk about it, or if they do, they’re pretty vague and back up a little bit. They try to avoid saying anything too hardcore.The big people who say the really hardcore things—I’ve noticed the most illustrious scientist who has really questioned the official story of 9/11 is Lynn Margulis. She was the National Medal of Science winner, the single biggest force in revising Darwinian evolutionary theory. In the past 20–30 years, there’s been a big revision, and she was the spearhead who actually won this scientific fight. She’s huge, one of the most important scientists of the modern era. She looked into 9/11 and figured it out very quickly. She was a smart cookie. She put out statements saying things like, “This was the most successful and most perverse public relations stunt in all of history. If this stands, science is dead. If people believe this story of how these buildings fell down, science is dead.” Those are basically quotes from her. Then she died suddenly. I’m a little suspicious, but who knows.The more important people like Wellstone, maybe Lynn Margulis, I think are in more physical danger. Jimmy Walter, a multimillionaire who spent millions on 9/11 Truth publicity, had his residence vandalized and was threatened, so he fled the country. He’s been living in Vienna ever since. He was a serious target because he had money and was spending it on 9/11 Truth. That made him more of a threat than someone like me with no money. Wellstone was more of a threat than McKinney.I went to one of his conferences in New York City and asked some attorneys about how the court system had been rigged against getting near 9/11 Truth. He explained the system by which attorneys on both sides had to agree that the 9/11 attacks caused Building 7 to collapse. It was because of debris from the Twin Towers that hit Building 7 and also damaged the church next to it. So the lie—the legal fiction—starts the lawsuit. You begin with a legal fiction and carry on from there. They couldn’t allow the lawsuit to even start if it involved the truth of how Building 7 collapsed because it would go where they didn’t want it to go.Interviewer: Now I had another question for you about Alexander Dugin. We’ve got eight minutes left, and I know you’ve been reading him recently. What do you think of his explanation about why we are basically in World War III? He says the attack on Iran is creating World War III, the difference between the unipolar world and the multipolar world, why the U.S. is now—everyone thought Trump was a multipolar guy because he said he was, then he became a unipolar guy—and whether he was led by Israel or worked it out with Israel, now he’s unipolar. That means the U.S. gets to do whatever it wants, and international law is gone. Dugin talks about all that. Can you comment?Dr. Barrett: I met Alexander Dugin at a conference in Tehran maybe seven or eight years ago. I talked to him after the panel discussion. We had a long conversation about how we both had been influenced by René Guénon, the founder of traditionalism. So we had a lot in common philosophically. I think, like a lot of people, he took too rosy a view of Trump for quite some time, thinking Trump was a multipolar guy. I don’t think Trump ever was. He just said he was. Even so, I think Trump is kind of an idiot who’s basically an idiot savant—he has political instincts far better than his intellect. But his policies, the so-called America First policies, are really neoconservative.The neocons are Machiavellian, Hobbesian realists, not exactly realists in the sense of Mearsheimer. These people are students of evil, which is how Leo Strauss, the founder of neoconservatism, described himself. He said he was a teacher of evil. He deliberately corrupted his students to take the side of evil. They believe that the strong rules, there’s no such thing as goodness, all forms of morality are just fictions for the stupid rubes. And we—the superior people, in some cases the Jews—are the people who understand that most evil wins. Netanyahu recently said Genghis Khan has it over Jesus. Genghis Khan wins; Jesus loses. That’s their philosophy. They believe in evil and want to be the most evil guy on the block and take over everything, get as much power as they can. They want to take over the world.These neocons have always known, as they say, that the best thing for Israel is for the United States to be totally taken over by the partisans of Israel and then for the U.S. to be the strongest country on the block. That way they take over the world. Their plan is not for a multipolar UN entity to rule the world for the Rothschilds. No, their plan is for the strongest guy to militarily conquer the world. The strongest guy for them has been the U.S. They own the U.S. The Jewish billionaire Zionist cartel dominates the U.S. more than any other country. They want to use U.S. military power to crush resistance. Some see their project as an American empire-run world; some as a Jewish empire-run world; some as an Israeli empire-run world. But it’s the same thing. Trump has always been a tool of those people. They brag about getting us to do their dirty work. We’re the goyim cattle, the subhumans. They think we’re stupid because we believe in morality, goodness, justice.I used to berate my audience because they didn’t realize how evil these people were. They thought they were making mistakes. I’ve said this a million times: The Vietnam War was not a mistake for these people. COVID, all these awful things—they’re not mistakes. This is how they control, survive, win. That’s part of their plan. I wouldn’t say all of it, though. We shouldn’t overestimate their intelligence or omnipotence. A lot of them are pretty stupid. Netanyahu isn’t particularly intelligent. Jeffrey Epstein may have been intelligent in an IQ sense but had failures of perception. The people he worked with weren’t super brilliant. It’s sort of an accident of history that these people have been as successful as they’ve been. They can be beaten. Hamas just beat Israel with almost nothing. Hezbollah is beating Israel again. Iran, with a military budget one one-hundredth of the U.S., is beating the U.S. This war is really stupid from their perspective.We shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that everything is part of their diabolical plot. They screw up a lot. But they can be beaten. We need to recognize that they’re not just evil—they’re also pretty stupid, especially the ones around Trump. Let’s go ahead and beat them. We can.My point isn’t that they always won. My point is that behind them is an evil motive. Vietnam, which I lived through, was not a mistake for them. It was a mistake only in that they didn’t achieve everything they wanted. But the fact that it went on a long time and killed a lot of people was not a mistake. Vietnam was partly a distraction from the 1967 Israeli war of expansion. That’s one reason the Israelis killed the Kennedys and put Johnson in power—to prepare for their war of expansion, first to get nukes because Kennedy was stopping them, second to have the U.S. on board for the 1967 war of expansion. To distract from that, they whipped up all this hysteria around Vietnam. That’s why they pushed us into Vietnam. Johnson didn’t really want Vietnam but protected Israel from the USS Liberty attack.Steve Green was a friend of mine. He wrote the book on it, Taking Sides. That’s called Chapter First, the whole thing.Interviewer: We only have about 30 seconds left. This wonderful information comes from Dr. Kevin Barrett, now happily living in Morocco. He’s a scholar, a philosopher. We didn’t get into all the other cool stuff about your bird book.Dr. Barrett: Yeah, it’s April Fool’s Day. I just published a humorous book of bird nonsense poetry. You can find it via truthjihad.com. Go to my Substack.Interviewer: Okay, and hopefully we’ll have that on. Thank you again for listening. Today was a straight hour, which is rare. We’ll be up again in two weeks, and you’ll see it on BitChute and wherever Dr. Barrett wants to put it.Dr. Barrett: Okay, bye-bye.Interviewer: Thank you. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News linkE. Michael Jones discusses his new article “Lust Darkens the Mind”, and breaks down the week’s news, in the above-linked episode of False Flag Weekly News. -KBMore and more Americans are asking: What, exactly, are we doing in Iran? Apologists for the war say: “We need to open the Strait of Hormuz! It’s a critical geostrategic choke point! The dastardly Iranians have closed it!”But before the US and Israel launched a cowardly sneak attack that murdered more than 150 schoolgirls, an 86-year-old Supreme Leader with terminal cancer, his daughter, son-in-law, little grandaughter, and many other innocent people, the Strait of Hormuz was wide open, and nobody was planning to close it. So if “opening the Strait” is the goal, the warmongers are trying to solve a problem that they themselves needlessly created.The war apologists then shift gears: “We need to protect the Gulf states and our military bases. The Iranians are pounding them!” But once again, that’s circular logic. Had the US not attacked Iran, US military bases occupying America’s Persian Gulf colonies would not be under attack. Nor would there be any imminent threat to the infrastructure, including the crucial energy infrastructure, of those colonies.“But if we stop escalating and retreat, Iran will emerge as a regional hegemon!” Again, that never would have happened if you had not attacked them in the first place.The apologists retreat to the fallback argument: “Iran was threatening to develop nuclear weapons!” But that is not true. Once again, by attacking Iran, the US and Israel created the problem they claim they’re trying to solve. Iran’s late Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Syed Ali Khamenei, had issued a fatwa forbidding all forms of WMD including nuclear weapons. But that fatwa was only valid during his lifetime. By killing him, the US and Israel removed the most serious obstacle to any prospective Iranian nuclear weapons program. The warmongers claim that by enriching uranium to 60%, far above what is necessary for nuclear energy or medicine, Iran showed it was pursuing nuclear weapons. They forget that the only reason Iran was doing that was because Trump had needlessly and stupidly shredded the JCPOA nuclear agreement. Under that agreement, Iran was strictly limited to enriching to no more than 3.67%, and the most intrusive inspections regime in history ensured full compliance. But if it wasn’t interested in nukes, why would Iran react to Trump’s betrayal of the JCPOA agreement by enriching to 60%? First, Iran wanted leverage to get sanctions relief. Neither Obama not Trump had honored the JCPOA’s provisions obliging the US to drop its economic sanctions. Iran felt the need to convey a clear message to the Americans: “We gave up something up by restricting our nuclear program, but you have to honor your promise to give something up too, by ending sanctions.”Secondly, Iran’s nuclear program presents a vague but meaningful deterrent to any prospective Israeli nuclear attack on Iran or its allies. With its robust nuclear program featuring plenty of know-how and equipment, Iran has put Israel in a position where it knows that if it uses nuclear weapons against Iran, Iran might rescind its WMD prohibition, engage in a crash program to quickly develop nukes, and retaliate. Thanks to Trump’s shredding the JCPOA, Iran now has plenty of 60%-enriched-uranium and could produce a dozen nuclear bombs fairly quickly in order to retaliate if it were itself attacked with nuclear weapons. (For details, listen to nuclear weapons expert Ted Postol.)So the nuclear issue, too, represents a case of US aggression creating the problem it pretends to be trying to solve. The self-proclaimed “very stable genius” Trump has taken a few minor non-problems and turned them into the mother of all quagmires.“We’ve taken away their incentive not to have a nuclear weapon. So we will start to worry as each week goes by, not because we have great intel, not because we’re human. It’s because of the opposite. We don’t have the exquisite intelligence we had with the Obama deal to know we had frozen the program. Now that we have Swiss cheese at best, And what we will see in the holes of the Swiss cheese are indications of nuclear development.” -Robert PapeSince all of the above-listed rationales for war on Iran are absurdly circular and transparently preposterous, it seems unlikely that any serious people in the American National Security State believe them. They must know that Trump’s war on Iran is inflicting catastrophic damage on US interests. And though they are not allowed to say it out loud unless they resign, as Joe Kent did, they undoubtedly know that the real Commander-in-Chief of this war is Benjamin Netanyahu, who is rolling the dice in what amounts to a long-shot gamble aimed at paving the way to a Biblically-inspired Greater Israel aspiring to regional if not global hegemony while expanding to occupy all of the land between the Nile and Euphrates rivers. In other words, this is a war for a global Pax Judaica, which would replace the Pax Americana that has prevailed since World War II, and in unilateral form since the collapse of the USSR in 1989.So the fact that this war is completely self-destructive from any conceivable US standpoint is a feature, not a bug. Operation Epstein Fury is really an Israeli war on the United States of America. Israel wants to destroy the Middle East and force the US out, so it can dominate the ruins. Ending US occupation of its Persian Gulf colonies will completely free Israel’s hand, which in the past has been at least mildly restrained from committing extreme actions, like the genocidal slaughter and expulsion of millions of Palestinians and the destruction of the al-Aqsa mosque, by US “alliances” with the Gulf satrapies.Presumably Israeli leaders think that since their ethnic-supremacist brethren dominate the Western banking system, they’ll be able to rebuild a power base that will be strong enough to expand their borders, dominate the region, and ultimately make Occupied Jerusalem the de facto capital of a Jewish-banker-controlled world. That would pave the way for the coming of an ethnosupremacist Jewish Messiah, who, according to Jewish eschatology, will exterminate most non-Jews, enslave the rest, and create an earthly paradise for Jews, each of whom will own 2800 goyim slaves.But as Alexander Dugin among others has pointed out, the Jewish messianic-millenarian vision that produced this war (and Israel itself, truth be told) makes no sense without the coming of the Jewish Messiah, a.k.a. the Antichrist. If the Messiah/Antichrist doesn’t show up, the whole plan falls apart. So the petty gangster Netanyahu, and his messianic-millenarian power base, are essentially gambling on the prospect of an Antichrist Messiah appearing and miraculously saving their genocidal kosher rear ends. And if past experience is anything to go by, that prospect seems unlikely. On many dozens if not hundreds of previous occasions, messianic-millenarian movements have gambled everything on the prospect of an imminent coming of their Messiah. And in every single case, they have lost. The last plausible candidate for Messiah-hood was Jesus, the antithesis of Jewish supremacist psychopathy, and even he hasn’t returned nearly as quickly as his followers expected.If the Antichrist doesn’t show up with miraculous superpowers, Israel too will find itself facing a quagmire. And that quagmire will get worse, not better, as the US inevitably retreats from West Asia. Without the protection of the kosher-nostra-occupied USA, a genuine geopolitical superpower, Israel will quickly collapse—unless of course a deus-ex-machina Antichrist Messiah arrives in the nick of time to save it. Apparently Smotrich and Ben-Gvir and Chabad Lubovitch think that if they murder enough children and sodomize enough people to death with sticks and slaughter a magical pink heifer, their devilish Messiah, gorged on the blood of innocents, will show up to save them. How Geopolitical Quagmires WorkI hate to say I told you so, but I have seen this quagmire coming for more than two decades. Iran has always been the last and most important country on the list of “seven countries in five years” targeted for destruction by the real perpetrators of 9/11. And it was clear to me, and to the serious decision-makers in Washington, that by attacking Iran, the US would lose far more than it could ever hope to gain. Only the insertion of the non-serious Israeli-owned president Trump, flanked by “experts” like Chabad real estate sharks Kushner and Witkoff, made this doomed war possible.One of the shrewdest and most insightful American strategic analysts, Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, likewise saw the Iran quagmire coming for more than two decades. Pape was one of the voices of relative sanity in the often-phantasmagoric discussions of “terrorism” that raged after 9/11. (Unfortunately he was never sane enough, or courageous enough, to publicly question the official story of 9/11.) As I wrote in my 2009 book Questioning the War on Terror: Are anti-imperialists and anti-colonialists who happen to be Muslim more likely to commit suicide terrorism than non-Muslims of the same political orientation? According to the best research the answer is no.Robert Pape is a University of Chicago professor who wrote Dying to Win:The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Pape’s exhaustive study of every suicide attack between 1980 and 2003 concludes: “The data show that thereis little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism or any one of the world’s religions.” Instead people of any or no religion use suicide terrorism as a weapon of last resort when their lands are invaded and occupied…It is a way for occupied peoples to increase the cost of occupation to the point that the occupier finally gives up and goes home. Pape points out that “what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.” Pape’s book suggests that if war is the terrorism of the strong, terrorism is the warfare of the weak.Pape’s otherwise-solid analysis uses an incorrect definition of terrorism. Following Zionist-owned imperial propaganda media, he considered terrorists to be people attacking imperial or colonial occupiers. But the actual definition of terrorism is “attacking civilians for political reasons.” And 99% of terrorism is committed by governments, mainly imperial and/or colonial ones. So the real terrorists are the occupiers. The heroes who stand up to them are resistance fighters—some of whom may attack civilians, in which case they, like their enemies, would be availing themselves of the military tactic known as terrorism.If Pape got terrorism mostly right, he has proved even more prescient in his analysis of the Iran quagmire. Pape has been simulating the likely progression and outcome of a US war on Iran for more than 20 years. Unlike Cassandra, the famous prophetess of doom, Pape did find some people to listen to him—namely the realist wing of the US strategic establishment. But Trump, Kushner, and Witkoff, egged on by Netanyahu, apparently weren’t listening when Pape explained why Iran would enjoy escalation dominance, ensuring an unhappy outcome for the US.Pape explains how quagmires happen: The aggressor, in this case the US, engages in wishful thinking by overestimating the chances of a limited military strike bringing about a desired political outcome. When, in January 2020, Trump and Netanyahu lured Iran’s greatest military figure and future president, Gen. Qassem Soleimani, to Baghdad under the false pretext of peace negotiations, then murdered him, they apparently imagined that such a dastardly crime would somehow produce a more pliable Iran. That, of course, didn’t happen. Then on June 13 2025, Israel launched a massive attack, murdering more than 20 senior Iranian leaders, leading to a 12-day war that the US joined at the end as a pretext to end the hostilities. The Israelis and Americans bombed Iranian nuclear sites, and Trump claimed that Iran’s nuclear program had been “completely obliterated.” But once again, the aggression backfired: Iran curtailed IAEA inspections, its 60% enriched uranium disappeared from Western radar, and the population rallied behind its government. On February 28, 2026, Trump, once again egged on by Netanyahu, apparently imagined that by murdering the Supreme Leader of Iran he could somehow magically bring about “regime change”—the fall of the Islamic Republic and its replacement by Baby Shah Pavlavi or the MEK terror cult. Predictably, the Iranian population rallied around their government, and the sacred memory of their martyred Supreme Leader and his family members, and wholeheartedly supported a war that will not end until Iran drives the US and its Israeli occupier out of the region.Pape wasn’t surprised that Iran has rallied behind the Islamic Republic rather than overthrowing it. Having studied every historical instance of attempts to coerce populations through strategic bombing, and to enforce regime change through air power alone, Pape observes that it has never, ever worked, and presumably never will.The failure of strategic bombing, Pape writes, sets the stage for the next phase of the quagmire or “escalation trap”: expanded bombing to include both military and economic targets. And when Iran shows it can match each such attack with proportional retaliation, the US will be tempted to move to an even more dangerous phase, by sending in ground troops. But to have a chance of militarily imposing its will on Iran, the US would have to send something on the order of a million ground troops—a political impossibility absent a colossal false flag orders of magnitude bigger than 9/11. And if Trump chooses to send a few thousand troops to Kharg Island, or on a treasure hunt for enriched uranium in the Zagros Mountains near Isfahan, such a fools’ errand is likely to end in disaster.If Trump, or more likely his master Netanyahu, were somehow able to overcome the rational elements of their security establishments and use nuclear weapons against Iran, both the US empire and Israel would be committing suicide by permanently imploding their global legitimacy. What’s more, Iran would not only mount a crushing response, ending Mideast oil production, rendering America’s Gulf colonies uninhabitable, and raining down fire and fury on Israeli nuclear sites, it would also probably embark on a crash program to develop nuclear weapons and use them to finish off the Zionist entity. Pape’s analysis shows that what he calls the “escalation trap” is based on two fallacies. The first and most obvious is the well-known sunk cost fallacy, the tendency to irrationally throw good money after bad. After all, if we’ve expended tremendous effort and expense to solve the Iran problem and everything we’ve done has only made it worse, why not keep doubling down?The other relevant fallacy is the belief that military power in general, and air power in particular, can magically solve political problems. Despite abundant historical evidence to the contrary, a certain wing of the strategic establishment has never stopped hoping that ever-improving bombing yields and accuracies would eventually amount to a magic wand that decision-makers could wave at political problems to make them go away. That hope, Pape explains, has always been chimerical, never more so than when applied to the current Zio-American war on Iran.Robert Pape is not the only American strategic thinker who understands these things. Presumably JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Kent, and plenty of others who’ve haunted National Security Council meetings grasp the gist of them. But getting Trump, a pathological narcissist and megalomaniac, to understand them, when such an understanding would amount to admitting defeat (and perhaps inviting Netanyahu to make good on “golden pager” blackmail threats) is probably just as impossible as regime-changing Iran. That’s why the reality-based, non-messianic-millenarian wing of the American deep state needs to embrace the slogan “regime change begins at home”…and act on it with ruthless alacrity.Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News linkDear Trump, you senile old pedophile, what in Epstein’s name were you thinking when you gave the order to attack Iran? Or more pertinently, since you’re incapable of anything remotely resembling thinking, who in Epstein’s name were you listening to, and why were you listening to them?Last week you blurted out that Jared, Steve, Pete, and Marco assured you it would be a cakewalk. But your military and intelligence chiefs advised against it. So who are you gonna believe, a pair of Jewish real estate shysters, an alcoholic former Fox News host, and an oily Israeli-owned gusano political operative—or your military and intelligence chiefs?You have a problem, Mr. Senile Pedophile President. Several, actually. First, you’re a complete moron. Second, being a moron, you have no choice but to rely on others’ ideas, since you have none of your own. And third, you are a pathological narcissist, so you only listen to people who flatter your vanity. And since you’re a moron with nothing whatsoever worth being vain about, your flatterers lie outrageously. That’s why you’re surrounded by the most pathetic gaggle of lying ass-kissers ever to cluster like flies around a piece of human s**t.I repeat: Everyone around you is lying to you. It isn’t just your fellow imbeciles like Kushner, Witkoff, Hegseth and Rubio passing on made-in-Israel whoppers about how easy it would be to conquer Iran. Even your military and intelligence chiefs lied by understating how bad an idea attacking Iran really was. They knew you liked the idea, that Jared and Bibi were egging you on, and that if they told you the honest-to-God truth you would flip out and maybe even fire them. So they sugar-coated it. They said “well, it’s a lot harder than it looks, and there’s a big potential downside, but if Jared and Bibi are right and the Iranian people really do thank you for killing their Supreme Leader, and they replace him with somebody who loves America and Israel, that would be great! Let’s hope and pray we don’t need a plan B, because there really isn’t much of one. But hey, we’re the greatest military in the world, and you’re the greatest Commander-in-Chief, so we’ll do our best.” If they even brought up the Strait of Hormuz, they probably said something like: “Well, I guess we can cross that Strait when we come to it.” And the problem is actually even worse than that. It isn’t just that everybody’s lying to you. It’s that you’re lying to yourself. You’ve been lying to yourself so long it’s become second nature. As a pathological narcissist, you have a built-in filter that adjusts every word and image and emotion that passes through your consciousness in such a way as to crank out maximum self-aggrandizement. For you, anything you’re involved in, anything you can take credit for, is the biggest, most beautiful thing that anybody’s ever seen. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it! You fancy yourself “a very stable genius” with a “very, very large brain,” meaning you’re too damn dumb to know how stupid you are. Everybody who doesn’t flatter and obey you is “vicious,” “horrible,” “the absolute worst,” or, as you recently termed Iranians, “deranged scumbags” with inferior DNA.So with your particular brand of psychopathology, Mr. Senile Old Pedophile-in-Chief, how are you going to admit defeat? Being congenitally incapable of admitting you were wrong, that you made a mistake, that you ever did anything less than brilliant, or even that you lost an election—you obviously will always claim that any election you lost was stolen from you, whether or not it actually was—how are you going to face up to the reality that Iran has well and truly kicked your sorry old senile pedophile ass? Especially when your advisors are afraid to tell you anything remotely close to the truth? The answer, of course, is: you won’t. You will keep throwing good money after bad, keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into the hole that Jared and Steve and Bibi convinced you to begin excavating, until you have destroyed yourself and your country, and possibly the world as well.Since I hate to end on such a gloomy note, let me offer you a way out: Declare victory and leave. Call a press conference and announce that you’ve made the biggest, most beautiful peace deal ever, bigger and more beautiful than anybody has ever seen: You’ve convinced those poor Iranian, Chinese, and Russian schmucks to assume the burden of providing security for the Middle East in general and the Strait of Hormuz in particular. From now on, American taxpayers won’t have to foot the bill! Beginning tomorrow, all US military personnel and as much equipment as we can pack up and carry will be leaving the region posthaste. Those Iranian, Chinese, and Russian suckers, maybe with some help from some other losers like the Turks and Iraqis and Gulf Arabs and whoever else wants to pitch in, will be stuck with the tab. Good riddance! And by the way, we’re also going to force the Chinese to provide security for Taiwan, and the Russians for Ukraine. This will save us trillions! Now we can get back to the business of making America, not the Middle East, great again. It’s an Epst…I mean, an epic, victory!Thank you for your attention to this matter, you disgusting senile old pedophile.SincerelyDr. Kevin BarrettPS I understand you have instructed your dwindling army of MAGAmorons to defend you against accusations of pedophilia by claiming that there is no evidence that you ever raped anybody under 13, and that since the global age of puberty onset for girls is considered to be between the ages of 8 and 13, your victims were not pre-pubescent, which means you are not a pedophile, just a rapist of very young girls. That issue came up during the latest episode of False Flag Weekly News, which I am sure you will enjoy watching.(01:11:05) Kevin Barrett: So here’s the key details of the 13 year old Trump accuser’s accounts, which are now verified during the fog of war—right after the war starts. And now they found those. “We accidentally incorrectly coded the documents as duplicative, so that’s why we withheld them illegally. So now you can see them while the war is distracting everybody.” And so this is about that 13-year-old that got apparently repeatedly interviewed. And basically the South Carolina newspaper went out and tracked down the details of this woman and what she said and who her family was and their record and their history and all that, and everything added up. So it’s interesting that the mainstream news about how these documents were being illegally withheld come out three days before Trump starts this war. And now the actual papers, the files, come out like a week after the war starts.Wyatt Peterson: Yeah. Is this about Katie Johnson? Is that who?I think so. I wrote an article in 2019 titled “Doorway to the Cesspit” because I contended that all the information being released about Epstein is just a doorway, and if the further people pursue that, it’s going to lead them into areas of unimaginable horrors. And that seems to be where it’s gone in that time. Now, I put in that article a couple sentences about Katie Johnson and her accusations against Trump, alleging that she was raped by Trump and Epstein, and I allowed a friend of mine to convince me to take it out. He said there was no basis for it, Trump couldn’t possibly be a pedophile, and it was kind of at the time it was a little, you know, a little—it wasn’t as solid as it is now. So I took it out, but you know to my own detriment, because it’s clear I believe it’s probably true. I think this was probably not a one-off situation either. And no, he ran that whole thing, Miss Teen America. He’s Epstein’s best friend. He’s a total sleazebag. He’s got this long list of rape allegations and all kinds of mistreating women allegations.And so he runs this teen beauty pageant. I mean, come on. I mean, pedophile, maybe no. I mean, maybe he didn’t go after prepubescents. But a 13-year-old is barely post-pubescent. So, whatever. The word pedophile technically might not cover that. But the way it’s used as a pejorative is basically to describe a sleazebag who is, in a predatory way, preying on underage people sexually. And Trump absolutely is. Of course he is. Come on, guys.Yeah. Yeah, no question. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Original YouTube link Rumble link Bitchute linkFoad of FoadDebate writes: In my latest conversation with Dr. Kevin Barrett, we unpacked the hidden dimensions and far-reaching implications of Iran's new leadership selection, a development that has not only shaken domestic dynamics but has also sent shockwaves through the calculations of global powers. With his characteristic sharp insight, Barrett describes Western media attempts to delegitimize this choice as textbook war propaganda, completely at odds with the realities on the ground and the public embrace of Iran's revolutionary path. Dismissing Trump's interventionist rhetoric about the new leader being "unacceptable," he frames such statements as a theatrical display of a declining U.S. hegemony. Barrett emphasizes that the selection of Ayatollah Seyed Mojtaba Khamenei, given the impeccable ethical track record and integrity of his family, is not only a strategic necessity amid the current full-scale war but also a powerful promise to continue the steadfast revolutionary line that has stood firm against Western overreach.Structured Summary of the InterviewIntroduction and Topic: Leadership Transition in Iran (00:00:00–00:00:33)The interview opens with the host welcoming viewers and introducing the topic: the selection of Sayyid Mojtaba Khamenei as Iran’s new Supreme Leader following the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The host asks Dr. Kevin Barrett to comment on criticisms from opponents of the Islamic Republic who argue that Mojtaba Khamenei’s appointment lacks legitimacy, particularly because he is the son of the previous leader.Barrett thanks the host and frames the discussion within the broader geopolitical context of the ongoing war involving Iran and its adversaries.Western Criticism and Allegations of Propaganda (00:00:33–00:03:02)Barrett argues that criticism of Mojtaba Khamenei’s leadership in Western media is part of a broader propaganda campaign connected to the war. According to him, Western governments and media outlets are attempting to portray events in a way that makes the United States and Israel appear successful while simultaneously undermining Iran’s leadership.He claims these narratives are intended to weaken Iran politically by questioning the legitimacy of its political system. Barrett argues that such efforts are unlikely to succeed because most Americans know little about Iran and therefore are not deeply influenced by these narratives.He also argues that within Iran, wartime conditions tend to increase unity around the national leadership rather than weaken it.Regime Change Narratives and Alternative Leadership (00:03:02–00:04:30)Barrett discusses what he sees as unrealistic Western attempts to promote regime change in Iran. He claims that the main alternatives often proposed by Western policymakers—the return of the Pahlavi monarchy or the leadership of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK)—lack credibility and popularity within Iran.According to Barrett, these groups are widely disliked by Iranians, making them ineffective as potential replacements for the Islamic Republic. He therefore interprets regime-change rhetoric as largely symbolic rather than a serious strategy.He argues that the real goal of the war has been to damage Iran strategically rather than to genuinely replace its government.Domestic Legitimacy and Reputation of the Khamenei Family (00:04:30–00:05:03)Barrett emphasizes that the Khamenei family has a reputation in Iran for personal integrity. He states that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was widely known for avoiding corruption and encouraging members of his family to maintain similar standards.Because corruption is a common issue in many countries, Barrett argues that the perception of honesty within the Khamenei family has helped maintain their credibility. He also notes that Mojtaba Khamenei is reportedly respected by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which plays a crucial role in defending Iran during wartime.For these reasons, Barrett believes the new leader is likely to have strong domestic legitimacy.Donald Trump’s Statements and U.S. Pressure (00:04:33–00:08:39)The host asks Barrett about statements by Donald Trump, who reportedly declared that Mojtaba Khamenei would be unacceptable as Iran’s next leader and suggested using a “Venezuela model” to change Iran’s leadership.Barrett strongly criticizes Trump and characterizes his remarks as attempts to intimidate foreign governments. He argues that powerful states sometimes try to pressure other countries into accepting leaders favorable to their interests.However, Barrett claims such tactics will not work with Iran because the country is politically and militarily resilient. He also argues that global respect for American leadership has declined and that Trump’s rhetoric illustrates that decline.Barrett further claims that the United States is losing influence in the region, citing difficulties maintaining control over strategic areas such as the Persian Gulf and protecting military installations.Impact of the New Leader on the War (00:08:41–00:10:27)The discussion then turns to whether Mojtaba Khamenei’s leadership will change the course of the war. Barrett explains that the new leader is believed to be aligned with Iran’s “principlist” political faction, which favors strong resistance to Western pressure.He contrasts this group with the reformist or pragmatic faction that previously hoped to improve relations with the United States and integrate Iran more closely into the global economy.Barrett argues that recent events have strengthened the principlists’ position because attempts at diplomacy with the United States have repeatedly failed.Distrust of the United States and Strategic Realignment (00:09:10–00:10:27)Barrett cites the collapse of the JCPOA nuclear agreement as evidence that Iran cannot rely on agreements with Washington. He argues that the United States negotiated the deal but later withdrew from it, which he believes damaged trust.He also claims that Iranian leaders have been targeted in attacks connected to diplomatic interactions, reinforcing the belief among many Iranian officials that negotiations with the United States are unreliable.As a result, Barrett believes Iran will increasingly align with countries in the Global South, particularly China, rather than seeking rapprochement with Western powers.Personal Stakes and Military Deterrence (00:10:27–00:11:01)Barrett suggests that Mojtaba Khamenei has a personal motivation to pursue a strong defense policy because members of his family were reportedly killed during attacks connected to the conflict.According to Barrett, this experience may reinforce the new leader’s commitment to strengthening Iran’s military capabilities so that similar attacks cannot occur again.He predicts that Iran will continue expanding its deterrent forces and military infrastructure.Historical Comparisons and Leadership Style (00:11:01–00:13:34)Barrett compares Iran’s current situation to two earlier periods in the country’s history.First, he references the era of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, when Iran faced the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980s. At that time, Iran was fighting for survival, and leadership required firmness and resilience.Second, he discusses the period under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, when there was still hope that diplomatic engagement with the West might improve relations. Reformists believed that normalization with Western powers might eventually be possible.Barrett argues that the present conflict has ended those expectations. In his view, Iran has returned to a situation similar to the 1980s, facing what its leaders consider an existential threat.He believes Mojtaba Khamenei’s leadership will reflect this more confrontational geopolitical environment.Symbolism, Legitimacy, and “Barakah” (00:13:34–00:14:26)Barrett suggests that Mojtaba Khamenei’s rise to leadership during a time of crisis may strengthen his legitimacy among supporters.He refers to the Islamic concept of barakah, meaning divine blessing or spiritual authority. In some cultures, including Morocco, leaders who emerge during difficult times are sometimes believed to possess a special form of guidance or protection.According to Barrett, this perception may give Mojtaba Khamenei a powerful symbolic role as the son of a leader who died during a national crisis.Closing Remarks: Moral Framing of the Conflict (00:14:26–00:17:19)In his concluding remarks, Barrett frames the conflict in moral terms, describing it as a struggle between good and evil in world politics.He criticizes the actions of the United States and Israel and argues that their policies demonstrate extreme aggression and dishonesty. By contrast, he portrays Iran’s leadership as fundamentally sincere and morally motivated, even though it is not perfect.Barrett also describes Iran’s defense strategy as a “mosaic defense,” meaning a decentralized system in which many independent actors contribute to the country’s protection. He suggests that people around the world who oppose Western policies should consider themselves part of this broader resistance.The interview concludes with the host thanking Barrett for his analysis and insights.BREAKING: New Supreme Leader’s First MessageThe first message of the Iranian Leader was issued some minutes ago: In the Name of GodAt the beginning of my remarks, I must offer my condolences to our Master, may God hasten his reappearance, on the heartbreaking martyrdom of the great and eminent leader of the Revolution, the wise and beloved Khamenei. I also ask that His Eminence pray for each and every member of the great Iranian nation, indeed for all Muslims of the world, for all those who serve Islam and the Revolution, for the self-sacrificing ones, and for the families of the martyrs of the Islamic movement—especially those of the recent war—and also for this humble servant.The second part of my words is addressed to the great nation of Iran. First, I must briefly explain my own position regarding the vote of the esteemed Assembly of Experts. This servant of yours, Seyyed Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei, learned of the result of the vote of the esteemed Assembly of Experts at the same time as you did, through the broadcasting of the Islamic Republic of Iran. For me, to sit in the place that was once occupied by two great leaders—Imam Khomeini the Great and the martyred Khamenei—is an extremely difficult matter. This seat carries the legacy of one who, after more than sixty years of striving in the path of God and renouncing all kinds of pleasures and comforts, became a shining jewel and an exceptional figure not only in the present era but throughout the history of the rulers of this country. Both his life and the manner of his death were intertwined with a grandeur and dignity born from reliance upon the Truth.I had the opportunity to visit his body after his martyrdom. What I saw was a mountain of firmness, and I was told that the fist of his healthy hand had been clenched. Those who are knowledgeable about the many aspects of his personality must speak at length about him. In this brief moment I suffice with this summary and leave the details for more appropriate occasions. This is the reason why sitting in the seat of leadership after such a person is difficult; bridging this gap will only be possible through seeking assistance from God Almighty and through the support of you, the people.It is necessary to emphasize another point which is directly related to the essence of my words. Among the great qualities of the martyred leader and his great predecessor was bringing the people into all arenas, continuously enlightening them with insight and awareness, and in practice relying upon their power. In this way they actualized the true meaning of the public and republican character of the system, and they sincerely believed in it. The clear effect of this was seen in the past few days when the country was without a leader and without a Commander-in-Chief. The insight and intelligence of the great Iranian nation in the recent events, together with its perseverance, courage, and presence, caused friends to admire and enemies to be astonished. It was you, the people, who led the country and guaranteed its authority. The verse that I cited at the beginning of this text means that no sign of God ever disappears or is forgotten without God replacing it with something similar or even better.The reason for citing this noble verse is not that this humble servant should be considered comparable to the martyred leader, let alone superior to him. Rather, the purpose of mentioning this verse is to draw attention to the proper and prominent role of you, the beloved nation. If that supreme blessing was taken from us, in its place once again the Ammar-like presence of the Iranian people was granted to this system. Know that if your power does not manifest itself in the arena, neither leadership nor any of the various institutions—whose true function is service to the people—will possess the necessary effectiveness.For this meaning to be realized more fully, first of all remembrance of God Almighty, reliance upon Him, and seeking intercession from the pure lights of the Infallibles (peace be upon them all) must be regarded like the supreme elixir and the rare philosopher’s stone that guarantees various openings and a definite victory over the enemy. This is a great advantage that you possess and your enemies do not.Second, unity among all individuals and groups of the nation—unity that usually manifests itself especially in times of hardship—must not be damaged. This can be achieved by overlooking points of disagreement.Third, effective presence in the arena must be maintained—whether in the form that you displayed during these days and nights of war, or through various effective roles in social, political, educational, cultural, and even security spheres. What matters is that the correct role be properly understood and implemented as much as possible without harming social unity. One of the duties of leadership and certain officials is to remind different segments of society of these roles. For this reason, I emphasize the importance of participation in the upcoming Quds Day ceremony of 1447, in which the element of confronting the enemy must be taken seriously by everyone.Fourth, do not neglect helping one another. Thanks be to God, this has always been a characteristic of most Iranians, and it is expected that in these special days—when naturally the situation may be harder for some members of the nation than others—this spirit will manifest itself even more strongly. I also call upon the service institutions to provide every possible assistance to those members of the nation and to the grassroots relief structures.If these matters are observed, the path toward days of greatness and glory for you, the beloved nation, will be paved. The nearest example of this, God willing, could be victory over the enemy in the present war.The third part of my remarks is to express my sincere gratitude to our brave fighters who, at a time when our people and beloved homeland have been unjustly attacked by the leaders of the front of global arrogance, have blocked the enemy’s path with their powerful strikes and have removed from them the illusion of being able to dominate or possibly divide our dear homeland.Dear fighting brothers, the demand of the masses of the people is the continuation of effective and regret-inducing defense. Likewise, the lever of blocking the Strait of Hormuz must certainly continue to be used. Studies have also been conducted regarding the opening of other fronts in which the enemy has little experience and where it will be highly vulnerable; their activation will take place, if the war situation continues and according to considerations of expediency.I also extend my sincere thanks to the fighters of the Resistance Front. We consider the countries of the Resistance Front to be our best friends, and the cause of resistance and the Resistance Front is an inseparable part of the values of the Islamic Revolution. Without doubt, the cooperation of the members of this front shortens the path to overcoming the Zionist sedition; as we have seen, courageous and faithful Yemen has not abandoned the defense of the oppressed people of Gaza, and the self-sacrificing Hezbollah, despite many obstacles, has come to the aid of the Islamic Republic, while the resistance of Iraq has bravely followed the same path.The fourth part of my words is addressed to those who have suffered some form of harm in these past few days—whether those who have experienced the martyrdom of loved ones, those who have been injured, or those whose homes or businesses have been damaged. First, I express my deep sympathy to the families of the noble martyrs. This comes from a shared experience I have with them. Besides my father, whose loss has become a public grief, I have also entrusted to the caravan of martyrs my beloved and loyal wife in whom I had great hopes, my devoted sister who had dedicated herself to serving her parents and finally received her reward, her young child, and the husband of another sister who was a learned and noble man. What makes patience in the face of such tragedies possible—and even easier—is attention to the certain and definitive divine promise of a great reward for the patient. Therefore one must be patient and maintain hope and trust in the grace and assistance of God Almighty.Second, I assure everyone that we will not abandon the revenge for the blood of your martyrs. The revenge we have in mind does not concern only the martyrdom of the great leader of the Revolution; rather, every member of the nation who is martyred by the enemy constitutes a separate case in the file of revenge. A limited portion of this revenge has already taken tangible form, but until it is fully achieved this case will remain open above the others—especially with regard to the blood of our children.Third, the wounded of these attacks must certainly receive appropriate medical treatment free of charge and benefit from certain other advantages.Fourth, as much as the current conditions allow, sufficient measures must be defined and implemented to compensate for financial damages to property and personal belongings. These last two matters constitute binding duties for the responsible officials, who must implement them and report the results to me.Another point that must be emphasized is that we will in any case demand compensation from the enemy; if they refuse, we will take from their assets as much as we deem appropriate, and if that too is not possible we will destroy an equivalent amount of their assets.The fifth part of my remarks is addressed to the leaders and influential figures of some countries in the region. We share land or maritime borders with fifteen neighboring countries and have always desired warm and constructive relations with all of them. However, the enemy has gradually established various military and financial bases in some of these countries in order to secure its dominance over the region. In the recent aggression some of these military bases were used; therefore, as we had clearly warned beforehand, and without targeting those countries themselves, we attacked only those bases. From now on we will inevitably continue to do so, although we still believe in the necessity of friendly relations with our neighbors. These countries must determine their position regarding the aggressors against our homeland and the killers of our people. I recommend that they close those bases as soon as possible, because by now they must have understood that America’s claim of establishing peace and security has been nothing but a lie.This will enable them to strengthen their bond with their own peoples, who are generally dissatisfied with cooperation with the front of disbelief and with its humiliating behavior, and thus increase their wealth and power. I repeat that the Islamic Republic system—without seeking domination or colonialism in the region—remains fully ready for warm and sincere relations with all its neighbors.In the sixth part of my remarks, I address our martyred leader. O Leader! By your departure you have placed a heavy sorrow upon all hearts. You had always longed for such an end, and finally God granted it to you while you were reciting the Holy Qur’an on the morning of the tenth day of the blessed month of Ramadan. You endured many injustices with authority and patience without showing the slightest displeasure. Many did not recognize your true worth, and perhaps much time must pass before the veils and obstacles are removed and some aspects of it become clear.We hope that from the elevated station you have attained among the pure lights, the truthful ones, the martyrs, and the saints, you will continue to care about the progress of this nation and all the nations of the Resistance Front and intercede for them, just as you did in your worldly life. We pledge to you that we will strive with all our strength to elevate this banner—the principal banner of the front of truth—and to achieve your sacred objectives.In the seventh part I thank all the distinguished figures who have supported me, including the Grand Marjaʿs of emulation, various cultural, political, and social personalities, and the people who have participated in great gatherings to renew their allegiance to the system. I also thank the officials of the three branches of government and the temporary Leadership Council for their good management and actions.I hope that God’s special blessings in these blessed hours and days will encompass the entire nation of Iran, indeed all Muslims and the oppressed people of the world.Finally, I ask our Master—may God hasten his noble reappearance—during the remaining nights and days of Qadr and the blessed month of Ramadan, to request from God Almighty decisive victory for our nation over the enemy, as well as dignity, prosperity, and well-being for the people, and elevated stations and eternal peace for those who have passed away.Peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you.Seyyed Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei21 Esfand 1404 (March 2026) This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News linkIn this week’s False Flag Weekly News, Helen Buyniski and I discussed Helen’s new article Grand Theft Reality. We also discussed Trump’s moronic war on Iran, which is rapidly turning into the mother of all fiascos for the US and its Israeli master.Since we began the show discussing how AI slop is devouring the world, I decided to send out two items, a satire and a summary, one written by a human, namely me, and the other by an AI. Can you tell which is which?-KBTrump Wants Epstein to Pick Iran’s New Supreme LeaderDissociated PressIn a White House press conference this morning, US President Donald Trump demanded that Iran allow Jeffrey Epstein to select its new Supreme Leader.“If Iran picks a leader who has never raped 13-year-olds in front of Mossad spy cameras, Bibi will force the US back into war in a few years,” Trump explained.Asked how Epstein could participate in the selection process given that he supposedly hanged himself, Trump chortled. “Jeffrey is alive and well, I can assure you. He’s living in a specially-outfitted Iranian-missile-proof child-rape-bunker in Tel Aviv. He can fly to Tehran at a moment’s notice with underage sex slaves and cameras, lighting equipment, viagra, and other essentials for filming Iranian leaders raping children, just like he filmed me.”Trump ordered Iran not to appoint the late Supreme Leader’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, who has been profiled by US and Israeli intelligence as someone who would never rape children in front of Mossad spy cameras.Trump said the US and its Israeli masters have long been grooming candidates for leadership positions in Iran, adding: “But most of them are dead. The Iranians keep executing them when they get caught raping children. Can you imagine! The Iranians are crazy. What a bunch of losers. They’re a vicious group of terrible people. The Middle East and the world won’t be safe until Iran has leaders who rape children for Israel like ours do.”In Tehran, a spokesman for the Council of Experts responded by texting a photo to the White House. The photo is currently being studied by the intelligence community in hopes that it will yield clues about whether the Iranians might be open to Trump’s Epstein overtures.False Flag Weekly News – SummaryOpening and AI Discussion (≈00:00–05:00)The episode begins with host Kevin Barrett welcoming journalist Helen Buyniski back to False Flag Weekly News. They briefly promote the show and invite viewers to support it financially before turning to the main discussion: artificial intelligence and its growing influence.Buyniski has written a new article titled Grand Theft Reality, which critiques the rapid expansion of AI-generated media. She argues that the scale of content production made possible by AI systems allows organizations to flood social media with competing narratives and alternate “realities.” In the time it takes a human to perform a simple task, AI systems can generate massive amounts of persuasive content.The two compare this phenomenon to science-fiction imagery from writers like H. P. Lovecraft. They argue that AI creates an illusion of intelligence because it excels at language manipulation, but does not actually understand meaning. According to Buyniski, language models merely reproduce patterns in text rather than comprehending the concepts behind them.Barrett notes that AI can be useful for certain purposes—such as language learning, translation, or studying linguistic patterns. Buyniski agrees, but warns that such capabilities also create the illusion of consciousness. When AI systems are tested in simulated scenarios, she claims, they may make extreme decisions because they do not understand moral context.AI Economics, Surveillance, and Privacy (≈05:00–11:00)The conversation shifts toward the economics and infrastructure behind AI technology. Barrett and Buyniski discuss the enormous valuations of technology companies involved in AI development, suggesting that the sector may represent a speculative bubble. They mention companies producing specialized computer chips required to train and run AI models and claim these resources are being priced in ways that limit independent experimentation.Buyniski argues that AI technology has created a new kind of data-harvesting economy in which companies encourage people to feed personal information into automated systems. Many enthusiasts, she says, openly share sensitive details with AI tools in exchange for convenience.She criticizes the idea—often promoted in the tech industry—that privacy is obsolete. Instead, she views this trend as part of a broader normalization of surveillance.Another issue discussed is “model collapse.” The hosts explain that AI systems learn from existing text on the internet. As more AI-generated content fills the internet, future AI systems increasingly train on material produced by other AI systems rather than original human writing. According to their interpretation, this process could degrade quality over time, producing more repetitive or less meaningful output.They also claim that large data sources like Wikipedia have begun selling data to AI companies, potentially complicating the distinction between human-generated and AI-generated information.The segment concludes with discussion of WorldCoin, a biometric cryptocurrency project associated with Sam Altman. The system involves scanning a person’s iris to verify that they are human. Buyniski criticizes the concept as an intrusive attempt to create a global digital identity system, possibly tied to future universal basic income programs.Transition to Geopolitics and War Coverage (≈11:00–14:00)The discussion transitions to global politics. Barrett introduces what he describes as the show’s central theme: a developing war involving Iran, the United States, and Israel.The hosts show a satirical AI-generated video contrasting Iranian confidence about resisting invasion with a caricature of American Gen-Z soldiers being drafted. They argue that the video demonstrates one positive use of AI: satire.This leads into commentary about the cultural attitudes surrounding war in different societies.Reports of Military Escalation (≈14:00–18:00)Barrett references several analysts and writers who claim that casualty numbers in the conflict may be higher than officially reported. He cites commentary suggesting that attacks on U.S. facilities in the Middle East have caused greater damage than acknowledged publicly.They also discuss claims that political leaders are escalating the conflict without proper constitutional procedures. According to Barrett, Congress voted against reclaiming its authority to formally declare war, which he criticizes as an abdication of responsibility.At the same time, the hosts note shifts in American political rhetoric. They point out that some politicians have begun criticizing Israel more openly than in the past, reflecting changing public opinion. Polling data showing growing sympathy among Americans for Palestinians is mentioned as evidence of this shift.Economic and Strategic Implications (≈18:00–23:00)The conversation turns to economic consequences of the conflict. One major issue discussed is the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial shipping route for global oil supplies. If the strait were effectively blocked, oil prices could surge dramatically, potentially disrupting the global economy.Barrett and Buyniski argue that the war could strain American military resources. They discuss the heavy use of missile defense systems such as Patriot and THAAD interceptors and speculate that stockpiles might be depleted quickly in a sustained conflict.They also debate political leadership and decision-making. Buyniski suggests that leaders surrounded by loyal advisers may develop unrealistic beliefs about their own power or military capabilities.Broader Geopolitical Effects (≈23:00–27:00)The hosts expand their analysis to the broader geopolitical environment. They suggest that other global powers—particularly Russia and China—may benefit strategically from a prolonged conflict in the Middle East.Higher oil prices could strengthen Russia’s economic position, while American military resources might be diverted away from other theaters such as Ukraine.They also discuss reports that Iran has targeted regional radar systems and military infrastructure, which could degrade U.S. and allied defensive capabilities.The hosts argue that Iran’s decentralized military command structure may make it difficult to defeat quickly. Rather than collapsing if leadership is attacked, they claim the system allows different units to continue operating independently.Damage, Propaganda, and Economic Strain (≈27:00–29:00)The conversation ends with discussion of damage inside Israel and the economic impact of the war. Barrett claims the Israeli economy is suffering significant weekly losses and that media censorship prevents the full extent of destruction from being widely seen.They reference an article suggesting that the war could become a historical turning point comparable to the 1956 Suez Crisis, which signaled the decline of British and French imperial power.In that crisis, economic pressure from the United States forced Britain and France to abandon their military intervention in Egypt. Barrett argues that the current conflict might reveal similar limits to American power, particularly if economic strain grows severe.Concluding PerspectiveThe hosts conclude by suggesting that economic factors—rather than purely military ones—may ultimately determine the outcome of the conflict. They speculate that global financial pressures, shifting alliances, and rising energy prices could reshape the geopolitical landscape.In their view, the combination of technological disruption from AI and geopolitical instability from military escalation illustrates a broader period of global transition.Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com