Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link

Who 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 Transcript

Kevin 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 fucking straits on Easter Sunday. Happy Easter and open the fucking 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 Hegseth
Shall we do what the drunken Hegseth
Shall we do what the drunken Hegseth
Early in the morning

He 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.

Rumble link Bitchute link

I 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. -KB

Friday, 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.

Rumble link Bitchute link

Makia 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.

US President Donald Trump is going down in the most epic crash-and-burn flameout in the annals of history and political science. The whole world wakes up every morning thinking “what incoherent, self-destructive, downright demented thing will this guy do next?”

Trump’s latest self-own: He’s going to blockade Iran’s blockade! Having recently unsanctioned Iran’s oil, thereby funding Iran’s defensive war, with the excuse that “we need more oil on the global markets to keep prices from going through the roof,” Trump is now going to try to make sure that none of that oil gets out. In other words, Trump hopes to solve a problem that didn’t exist on February 27—the Straits of Hormuz is closed to war criminal traffic—by making sure that the Straits are even more closed! He’s going to try to solve the problem of higher oil and fertilizer prices triggering a global economic meltdown by blockading even more oil and fertilizer.

Like Brer Rabbit caught in the Tar Baby trap, Trump keeps flailing wildly back and forth between extreme “solutions” that only worsen the problem. Not getting everything you (or Bibi) want from Iran? Murder their kind, grandfatherly leader and a school full of little girls. Oh-oh, now they’re fighting back bravely and effectively? Lie and say they’re losing, based on your daily two-minute highlight reels of stuff getting blown up. Epic disaster when you try to grab their uranium? Say it was a successful rescue operation. The lies aren’t working? Threaten to genocide the entire Iranian civilization. They don’t blink? Say you accept their 10-point terms as the basis for negotiations, then contradict and re-contradict yourself. Negotiations melt down thanks to your side’s incoherence? Blockade their blockade…and if they blockade your blockade of their blockade, well, you can always one-up them by blockading their blockade of your blockade of their blockade.

Since 2015 I’ve been calling Trump an unstable, narcissistic, none-too-bright Kosher Nostra frontman cosplaying as an astroturfed “populist.” Don’s Excellent Iranian Adventure is bringing a lot of people around to that view. But even before the Iran debacle, it was clear that the Narcissist-in-Chief was losing his marbles, and probably hadn’t had that many to begin with. Almost one year ago, A.J. Smuskiewicz, who voted for Trump twice, finally noticed the ever-worsening problem:

Trump: NATO and the U.S. provoked Russia to invade Ukraine. Putin invaded Ukraine unprovoked because he wants to take over the whole country—and maybe Poland too. Russia is winning the war and holds all the cards. Russia is not winning the war and doesn’t hold any cards. Maybe Ukraine can join NATO. Ukraine can never join NATO. Putin wants peace. Putin does not want peace, so we will hit Russia with crushing sanctions. There will be no more sanctions on Russia. Zelensky wants peace. Zelensky does not want peace. We will stop all weapons to Ukraine. We will send more and better weapons to Ukraine. Ukraine needs to hold elections. Ukraine does not need to hold elections. We have a minerals deal. We do not have a minerals deal. No European troops should be in Ukraine. European troops should be in Ukraine. The U.S. should stop all involvement in Ukraine. The U.S. should take over Ukraine’s power plants. I’m talking to Putin. I’m not talking to Putin. I just talked to Putin. Who is Putin?

Israel should finish the job in Gaza and do whatever it takes to eliminate Hamas and win the war there. Israel needs to stop the fighting and killing in Gaza. People in Gaza are suffering and want to live in peace. We will help them. People in Gaza don’t want peace. They are terrorists and must be destroyed. Israel can kick out all the Palestinians and take over Gaza. I’m going to buy Gaza and build resorts and casinos there. It will be beautiful for everyone! Netanyahu is an SOB and I hate him. I just s—ed Bibi’s c–k in the Oval Office while Miriam watched, and I told them both that I will do whatever they want me to do.

We totally crushed the evil weakling Houthis in Yemen. The Houthis are brave and strong fighters. Ahmed al-Sharaa is an evil terrorist with a $10 million bounty on his head. Ahmed al-Sharaa is a very attractive man with a strong past. He serves delicious tea, and I really love his beard! Iran has a right to enrich uranium for its nuclear program. Iran must stop all uranium enrichment and end its nuclear program.

I love tariffs! Tariffs will be 10 percent. No, 20 percent. 25 percent. No wait, make it 50 percent. Okay, how about 125 percent? Would you believe 145 percent? Just wait, I’ll make them a hundred thousand million billion trillion zillion percent! The biggest tariffs anyone ever saw, it’ll be a record! Everyone will be amazed! Oh, just forget about it, we’ll go back to 10 percent. Tariffs? I don’t want any tariffs. I don’t like ‘em.

If dementia means not remembering what you just said and did, Trump has been demented for a long time…maybe his whole life. As I wrote in October 2018, after Bob Woodward’s Fear: Trump in the White House revealed that aides routinely sabotaged Trump’s written orders by stealing the papers from his desk:

Woodward’s book Fear confirms Michael Wolff’s earlier claim in Fire and Fury that practically everyone who has worked with Trump considers the President a mental midget. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is quoted as saying Trump acts like, and has the understanding of, “a fifth or sixth grader.” Woodward confirms earlier accounts that ex-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called Trump a “moron.” Many other Trump advisors express similar sentiments. There is only one denizen of the White House who thinks Trump is a “very stable genius,” and we all know who that is.

So the most powerful man on Earth is a cognitively challenged lunatic who has started an ever-worsening war and global economic meltdown that he cannot possibly fix, since he not only is intellectually incapable of understanding reality, but what’s more is a pathological narcissist who can’t admit defeat, and admitting defeat is the only way out.

What should we do about it?

As Americans, we need to take a hard look at Trump, then a harder look at ourselves in the mirror, and face the uncomfortable truth that Walt Kelly exposed back in the Vietnam era:

Like the Jews, we Americans like to think we’re God’s chosen. And like the Jews, we wax narcissistic and act like God’s chosen scumbags.

Let’s face it: We are the bad guys in this conflict. There is just no way around it. There was no good or even not-so-good reason to attack Iran. As Catholic leaders understate it, this is not a just war. And while the Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Korean wars were also blatantly unjust—and let’s not even get started on the massively mythologized World War II—Trump’s crazy war on Iran has basically dispensed with the fig leaves and left the warmongering mad emperor naked for all the world to see.

Scripture tells us that God will not change the condition of a people until they change themselves. It’s time for Americans to look at themselves in the mirror, see a reflection that looks a bit like Trump, and notice the horns and the tail…then flip sides and side with Jesus, not the Antichrist.

Am I saying Trump is the Antichrist? He does seem to be trying out for that role.

Google Gemini, another candidate for the Antichrist role, tells us:

In Christian theology, the Antichrist is a figure prophesied to oppose Jesus Christ and falsely substitute himself as a savior before the Second Coming, embodying the ultimate spirit of deception. Often linked to the "Beast" of Revelation, this entity represents a "lawless" world leader who persecutes believers, breaks a 7-year covenant, and demands worship.

Trump ticks several boxes:

*He opposes the spirit of Jesus Christ, who was meek, humble, hung out with the poor and despised the rich, opposed the Jewish bankers and drove them out of the temple, preached love and forgiveness and turn-the-other-cheek, and so on.

*Trump seems to be falsely claiming the savior role.

*Trump is the epitome of “lawless world leader.”

*Trump persecutes the genuine believers, whether Christians like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens and Megyn Kelly and Prejean Boller, or Muslims like the Iranian leadership (and the other 2 billion Muslims).

*Trump demands worship. Stop bowing to him, and you’ll never work in his town again.

*And finally, though we are only in the sixth year of Trump’s eight-year “covenant,” he has permanently broken his main promise—to be a peacemaker. That is not quite “breaking a 7-year covenant” but it’s close enough.

So Trump may or may not be running for re-election in 2028 (good luck with that) but he definitely does seem to be running for Antichrist. In many ways he is a better candidate than his master Netanyahu, who never pretended to be a peacemaker or to have any positive feelings about Christians and Christianity. (The Antichrist, we recall, fools people into thinking he’s on the side of Christ.)

The Antichrist follows Satan, the father of lies. And Trump certainly has taken the art of political lying to new heights, or depths, of risible absurdity. While most politicians are occasional liars, Trump is in a class of his own. As John Mearsheimer said in a recent interview, to lie effectively, the liar needs to tell the truth 90% of the time so people will take the lies seriously. Trump has more than reversed any conceivable optimum ratio of truth-to-lies, making him look foolish and ineffective as well as shockingly mendacious.

Christian traditions suggest that the Antichrist will try to “rebuild the temple” in Jerusalem after committing an “abomination of desolation.” It would be easy to conflate the abominations of Zionism—off-the-charts lying, genocide, glorifying murderous anal rape, reveling in the murder of women and children, and so on—with the antichrist-satanism of the Sabbatean Frankists who are the driving force behind Israel and Zionism…and to view those abominations as predecessors to the final abomination, the destruction of the al-Aqsa Mosque, paving the way for the Antichrist a.k.a. the “Jewish messiah” who will claim that he, not Jesus, is the real Messiah. And Trump has certainly contributed mightily to that abominable project, not just by starting a potentially apocalyptic war, but before that by moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, an implicit official American endorsement of Project Antichrist.

Islamic tradition follows Christianity in its view of Dajjal or Antichrist, just as it accepts the Christian claim that Jesus is the one true Messiah. In addition to the Christian description of Antichrist as a bogus Christ, a self-styled messiah who demands worship, a lawless world leader, and persecutor of the righteous, Islam posits two additional interesting (symbolic) characteristics: First, the Antichrist will “have the word kaffir written on his forehead” and everyone, even the illiterate, will be able to read it. In other words, it will be obvious to all that the Antichrist does not have iman (humble heart-knowledge/faith in God) but rather worships his own ego, thereby following in the footsteps of the original vainglorious egomaniac, Satan. And Trump, more than any other world leader in history, has egomaniacal narcissism spelled out on his forehead for everyone to read.

Secondly, Islamic tradition tells us that the Antichrist will have only one eye, symbolizing spiritual blindness. He will only see the material world, and be completely seduced by its trappings, while failing to perceive even the faintest hint of spiritual reality. Trump fits this description perfectly, conveying in all of his words and deeds that he has an eye for the material world but not for the spiritual one.

We Americans ought to gaze into the mirror of self-reflection and ask ourselves: Are we becoming more and more like Trump…meaning like the Antichrist?

*We accept global lawlessness, especially since the false flag 9/11 shock-and-awe operation inaugurated the ongoing “state of emergency.”

*We worship ourselves, and leaders who invite us to vicariously worship ourselves. This narcissistic streak has grown vastly worse since the spread of social media, which many people use mainly to try to make themselves look glamorous and successful.

*We evince less and less love and forgiveness. Again, social media has worsened this decline into tribal hatefests and mudslinging and loss of openness to, and compassion for, other viewpoints and cultures.

*We increasingly lose touch with spiritual realities and become immersed in the merely material.

*We vaunt our condition, to the point that it might as well be written on our foreheads.

Now that Trump is self-imploding, mask off and devilish skull grinning hellishly at us from beneath the MAGA hat, those who were taken in by his con artistry are being offered a clear chance to repent. They should ask themselves: How did I fall for that snake? What part of me resonated with his Antichrist energy? Has a part of me fallen into Trump’s stinking pit of narcissism, to the point that I felt the need to vicariously boost my ego by identifying with that monster? How can I let go of that side of myself, non-attach from it, and surrender completely to God?

But Trump-haters, too, ought to undergo some self-reflection. Isn’t Trump’s in-your-face evil an accurate reflection of what Uncle Sam has become? Was voting for Harris or Biden or Obama, all card-carrying members of the Epstein class, an act of self-deception…indeed, a monumental lie? Am I, the self-righteous Trump hater, really so much better than all those MAGA morons I despise? Doesn’t thinking I’m better than them reflect the same kind of pathological egotism that Trump exudes? Trump admits he’s in it to steal the oil and serve the Adelsons, whereas the people I voted for invented saccharine lies, which I tolerated and implicitly endorsed. Could it be that I’m actually only better than the Trump voters at one thing: hypocrisy?

So go ahead: Gaze at the TV, contemplate Trump’s face, and face the fact that your TV is a mirror.

We have met the Antichrist, and he is us.

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 America

I 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. -KB

Israel Hijacks America’s Brain

By 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.

Rumble link Bitchute link TruthJihad link

Transcript:

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.

I awoke this morning with trepidation. Had Trump tried to follow through with his unhinged threats to “bomb Iran back to the Stone Age” and ensure that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again”—or had he even significantly escalated his terrorist bombings of Iranian infrastructure—things might have gotten seriously crazy, as in “way beyond Cuban Missile Crisis crazy, way beyond drunken Nixon having his nuclear codes taken away crazy, way beyond Great Depression crazy.”

Unlike North Americans, I went to bed here in Morocco before Trump’s 8 pm Eastern deadline expired. 8 pm Eastern is 1 a.m. Morocco time, and I didn’t feel like staying up late just to find out whether the world had ended.

When I awoke, it seemed like a nice Mediterranean spring morning. The birds were singing, celebrating the T-shirt weather and faintly redolent sea breeze. I ascended to the rooftop terrace, turned on the radio, watered the plants, and exercised while listening to مغربيات العالم (Moroccan Women of the World). It celebrates women who, like my wife, have pursued their dreams abroad, often returning to their home country after raising families, earning advanced degrees, or building successful business or professional practices, in Europe, North America, China, Australia, or the Middle East.

The interviewee was a Rabat woman who had moved with family members to Dubai to start a business. Given the lighthearted, optimistic way she was talking about Dubai, it didn’t sound like the Iranian military had just basically scrubbed it from the face of the Earth…which is what would have happened if Trump had mounted his apocalyptic attack on Iran’s infrastructure. (Dubai without desalinization plants is not a place where anybody but a few camel-herders and fishermen could live.)

Given that the world in general, and the Middle East in particular, apparently still existed, I grew guardedly optimistic. After finishing my rounds of push-ups, pull-ups, high-kicks, stretches, and other routines I learned from a Chinese martial arts teacher in San Francisco 40 years ago, I descended the stairs to the kitchen, brewed a pot of green tea, and opened my laptop to find out just what in tarnation had happened to Trump’s apocalyptic 8 pm deadline.

The superficially good news, for Trump, was that Iran had accepted a two-week ceasefire and agreed to open the Strait of Hormuz. The much better news, for Iran, was that Trump only got his ceasefire by accepting Iran’s 10-point plan as the basis of negotiations. What’s more, Iran will retain control of the Strait, in tandem with its tag-team partner Oman, even while “opening” it and charging a toll.

In other words, Trump has for all intents and purposes surrendered. I doubt that any power in history that enjoyed a 100-to-1 military spending advantage over its enemy has ever been this thoroughly humiliated.

Let’s go down the list of Trump’s stated goals for launching his war of aggression, and how he fared.

*Goal #1: Regime change, i.e. overthrowing the Islamic Republic and inserting a US puppet, namely Bignose Baby Shah, on the Peacock Throne in Tehran. That project has failed spectacularly, as everyone who knows anything about Iran always knew it would. Trump has claimed success—he murdered a genial 86-year-old anti-nuclear-weapons-fatwa-issuing cancer patient, whose much harder-line son is the new Supreme Leader. From a ZioAmerican perspective, replacing Khamenei with Khamenei is regime change in the wrong direction.

But it gets worse (for the ZioAmericans) and better (for the Iranians). The real ZioAmerican goal was the destruction of the Islamic Republic. But by waging such a ham-handed, transparently evil war of aggression, Trump incentivized the Iranian people to rally around their fully-sovereign Islamic Republic, which they have done in utterly spectacular fashion. Millions of Iranians have been cheering their leadership and soldiers every night in the streets of Tehran and other cities. Last night they formed gigantic human chains to protect the infrastructure that Trump was threatening to nuke. The upshot of this war, which started with the murder of 160 children at the girls’ school in Minab, is that the Islamic Republic is emerging with its legitimacy, which was never really in question, pumped up on steroids and ready to continue triumphing over whatever challenges come its way for decades if not centuries.

*Goal #2: Eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. This, too, has failed spectacularly. The botched raid on Isfahan was the last straw. Obviously there is no military solution to this issue, or any other issue involving Iran. Trump will have to return to negotiations, and he will have to accept a deal that he could have gotten without the war. In fact, he will probably have to settle for less. Since Iran doesn’t want or need nuclear weapons anyway, assuming other security alternatives exist, whatever “concessions” Iran makes on the nuclear issue will be pure window-dressing. In any case, Iran’s 10-point-plan, now the basis of negotiations, enshrines Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment. Trump will be lucky to walk away with anything as good as Obama got in the original JCPOA.

*Goal #3: Eliminate Iran’s missiles and drones. Here again, Trump’s war backfired outrageously. Rather than eliminating Iran’s missile force, the war proved its efficacy. We now know for certain (as knowledgable observers strongly suspected) that Iran’s offensive missiles can penetrate and outlast US and Israeli defenses. Iran’s ability to win an asymmetric war by exercising escalation dominance, if necessary all the way up to the “nuclear option” of imploding the world economy and rendering the Gulf region (and perhaps Israel) uninhabitable, has been demonstrated and proven. It’s no longer theoretical—it’s a done deal. All those tens of thousands of missiles and drones buried deep beneath Iranian mountains are untouchable and invincible. By forcing Iran to prove its capabilities, Trump inadvertently made Iran a much stronger military power than it was when those capabilities remained somewhat theoretical.

Goal #4: Eliminate all of Iran’s friends and allies in the region, including Hezbollah, Ansarullah (the Houthis), the Palestinian Resistance, and pro-Iran militias in Iraq. Another monumental failure: Every one of those groups is stronger now than it was before Trump’s war. Hezbollah was forced to prove that it is still as strong as ever—and it has, bogging Israel down near Lebanon’s southern border, raining down missiles on Occupied Palestine, and giving the lie to the ridiculous myth that terrorist attacks with explosive consumer electronics can somehow defeat a broadly-based resistance movement. Meanwhile the Houthis are squatting by the Red Sea ready to shut it down at a moment’s notice—another wing of the Axis of Resistance’s “nuclear option”—cementing their power and legitimacy as well as their ties with Iran. And Iraq is moving to finally kick the American occupation army out, more than six years after Iraq’s parliament voted, in January 2020, to expel all US forces. By forcing the Resistance Axis to flex and use its muscles, Trump not only failed to eliminate it, he greatly strengthened it.

Goal #5: Annihilate Iran’s navy and control its waters. Here again, it is difficult to do justice to just how outrageously Trump has not just failed, but moved things in the exact opposite direction from his intended one. Iran’s power to control nearby waters, and the crucially important commercial arteries they host, has gone from theoretical to real, thanks to the war. Prior to the war, Iran faced difficulties moving its oil, which was sanctioned and obstructed by the US, while oil from Iran’s US-occupied Gulf state opponents flowed freely. Trump’s war forced Iran to seize control of the Persian Gulf. That is now a done deal. The Gulf is now and forever an Iranian lake. The US has already been forced to de-sanction Iranian oil. It is the Gulf states’ oil and gas that was blocked, and they will now have to pay a toll.

Iran’s navy, like its missiles, is an asymmetrical force buried deep in tunnels under mountains. It consists of thousands of speedboats capable of laying mines or attacking commercial or military targets. Trump not only failed to destroy it, he barely even scratched it. But more importantly, Trump demonstrated that the US Navy could not take control of the Gulf. Nor can US military power in general provide security to the region and its monumentally important energy infrastructure. This is a US naval defeat of epic proportions. Like the Suez crisis, which proved that Britannia and its friends no longer ruled the waves, Trump’s loss to Iran will go down in history as the death knell of American global naval power.

Goal #6: Destroy Iran for Netanyahu. This was, in fact, the real goal of the war. Nobody who knew anything about Iran or West Asia or geopolitics ever thought any of the first five goals were achievable. Netanyahu, and his acolytes who surround Trump, conjured up visions of impossible victories as an excuse to lure Trump into the Iranian quagmire. Their hope was that they could keep Operation Quagmire going long enough to do exactly what Trump was threatening yesterday: Bomb Iran back to the Stone Age. The Israelis apparently thought that if things got really apocalyptic, with the whole region laid waste and the global economy imploded, “Greater Israel” could accelerate its genocide of Palestine, and its theft of its neighbors’ land, and emerge as a regional hegemon. Blowing up the al-Aqsa mosque to “rebuild” a blood sacrifice temple, leading to the coming of the Jewish Messiah (the Antichrist for the rest of us) would be a nice bonus.

Trump’s ceasefire, based on Iran’s 10-point plan imposing the terms of its victory, is a huge setback for Netanyahu and his Project Antichrist. That is why, as Caitlin Johnstone observed:

For what it’s worth, Zionist Twitter is in absolute meltdown right now, with notorious Israel apologists like Laura Loomer, Eve Barlow and Eli David rending their garments in outrage that the killing has ended with Iran positioned as it is. I’m as skeptical about this ceasefire as anyone, but the fact that the world’s worst people are in meltdown about it right now does provide a faint glimmer of hope.

It’s actually more than a faint glimmer, Caitlin. Iran is in a very strong position. The agreement to negotiate Iran’s ten-point-plan moves the goal to the Iranian side of the field: The only issue under discussion is not who wins, but how many goals Iran scores. And while it’s always possible that the partisans of Operation Antichrist will find a way to wriggle out of this and resume their attempts to blow up the region and with it the global economy, a two-week pause in the trip up the escalation ladder will make that less likely. Crucially, Trump has completely abandoned his ridiculous demands for what amounted to an Iranian surrender. Instead, he has accepted Iranian demands for a US surrender as the framework for negotiations. Given that this is existential for Iran, but not for the US, the only ways out of this war have always been a simple, binary pair: Apocalypse or Iranian victory. The best terms the US could ever hope to get amounted to a couple of fig leaves to make the inevitable Iranian win less humiliating. Trump has played his cards badly, so isn’t going to be offered many fig leaves.

One crucial though intangible outcome of this war will be its effect on the warring parties’ international prestige, a crucial component of soft power. Here, too, Iran and its friends seem poised for a crushing victory. By launching such a stupid, counterproductive, blatantly illegal war, and compounding his mistake by incessantly blathering like a criminally insane inmate of a lunatic asylum, Trump has taken the USA down several notches in the eyes of the world. Even the Euro-poodles, who normally roll over for anything the US does no matter how stupid, had no interest in buying Captain Trump’s specially-discounted post-iceberg-strike tickets on the Titanic.

Iran’s leadership, by contrast, emerges from the war with enhanced gravitas: They appear serious, reasonable-but-firm, strategically savvy, committed to defending their country, and last but not least, extremely courageous. The contrast with the likes of Trump and Hegseth and Netanyahu could not be starker. In the aftermath of this war between civilization and barbarism, it will be impossible for the world to ignore who are really the adults in the room, and who are the spoiled, stupid children. Given Iran’s high-class leadership and control over Gulf energy, the whole world is going to be wanting to “go to Tehran,” as the Leveretts—America’s most prescient Iran experts—vainly advised US leaders to do more than a decade ago.

Why is Iran’s leadership so spectacularly good, especially compared to the competition? The secular Jewish-born French sociologist Emmanuel Todd doesn’t like Iran’s theocracy, perhaps because he doesn’t really understand it. But Todd does understand that societies are always based on widely-shared religious values, and that much of the world today, starting with the West, is collapsing into nihilism due to the widespread loss of religion. Islamic Iran, which faces the same challenges as other modern nations involving modern lifestyles and technologies undermining religion and reinforcing nihilism, is blessed with sophisticated, religiously-literate leadership committed to warding off nihilism and maintaining the shared values that make social life possible. In this, Iran will likely become a model for other nations, beginning with Muslim-majority ones, and perhaps extending even to Christian polities. Russia, for example, might want to consider becoming a Christian Republic with someone like Tikhon Shevkunov as its supreme religious leader exercising a degree of guardianship over the state apparatus.

So by waging a foolish war on Iran that has blown up in his face, Trump may have “made Iran great again” by re-infusing that blessed nation with the same kind of Islamic Republican energy that erupted in 1979 and was cemented by the Imposed War of the 1980s. And not only has Trump set Iran on a pedestal and highlighted its greatness, he has also positioned it to emerge as a model and inspiration for the whole Islamic world, and beyond.

Trump, and behind him Project Antichrist, plotted against Iran…and failed. As the Qur’an says, “They plot, and God plans, and God is the best of planners.”

Fars News Agency

Translation from Farsi:

Western Islamologist: Iran defends human values ​​on behalf of all humanity

Kevin Barrett, a Western Islamologist, addressed the Supreme Leader of the Revolution and stated that the Iranian nation, by resisting aggression and crime, defends human values ​​at a level beyond national borders.

According to a reporter from the Fars Khairgazari Seminary and University Group, Dr. Kevin Barrett taught at universities and colleges in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin from 1991 to 2006.

His last teaching position was in the field of Islamic and Arabic studies at the University of Wisconsin, and in the post-September 11 era, he decided to spend most of his time researching, studying, and writing more than 5,000 articles and several books criticizing the United States’ war- and Zionist-centered foreign policy.

Among his books are “Truth Jihad”, “Questioning the War on Terror” and “We Are Not Charlie Hebdo” on the issues of the West Asia, 9/11 and other false flag attacks..

This media personality, who was one of the founders of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, has been interviewed many times by Fox, CNN and PBS.

Dr. Barrett is also the co-author and editor of four other books.

His outstanding feature is his connection with a wide range of institutions and his identification of anti-Israel critical figures among university professors and figures who have had a history of working in the government.

Dr. Kevin Barrett, through the International Office of the School of World Studies, in a letter addressed to the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, His Holiness Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, expressed condolences for the losses and casualties inflicted on Iran, described the US-Israeli war against Iran as “blatantly unjust, illegal, and evil,” and considered the resistance of the Iranian nation to be “a just and heroic struggle.”

He also referred to the martyrdom of Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, calling it “an Ashura martyrdom that will never be forgotten,” and praised the role of the Iranian leadership in defending the Palestinian people and other oppressed people.

Referring to his experience attending one of the speeches of the martyred Leader of the Islamic Republic in Tehran, the author of this letter mentioned his spiritual character, kindness, and wisdom, and emphasized that the Iranian nation, through its resistance against aggression and crime, defends human values ​​at a level beyond national borders.

The full translation of the letter follows:

Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran

His Excellency Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei

Your Excellency,

I am writing this letter to express my condolences for the terrible loss and destruction inflicted on your nation and your family by the genocidal psychopaths in Washington and Tel Aviv.

Never has there been a war as blatant, unjust, illegal, and vicious as the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran.

Likewise, never has there been a struggle as just and heroic as the Iranian nation’s resistance to these war criminals, and its broader defense of the victims of genocide in Palestine and other oppressed people.

I congratulate your country in general for its high quality of leadership, and in particular on the occasion of the heroic martyrdom of your esteemed father, the second leader of the Islamic Republic, Seyyed Ali Khamenei, whose ascension and martyrdom on Ashura will never be forgotten.

Seven years ago, I had the opportunity to attend one of the Leader’s speeches in Tehran, and that speech had a profound effect on me. I have also published his letter to the youth of the West in my book, “We Are Not Charlie Hebdo.” I have always considered him to be an unusually kind, thoughtful, compassionate, intelligent, and spiritually insightful leader. In all these qualities, he was the complete opposite of most Western leaders, especially the two devils who run Washington and Tel Aviv.

The President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel are both pathological narcissists. We don’t even need to consult professional psychologists like Bandy X. Lee, who wrote a book on Trump’s condition, to diagnose this. Anyone with eyes can see it.

The criminal regimes of America and Israel have gone too far and adopted evil as their motto. They deliberately murder schoolgirls, target search and rescue teams in double-tap attacks, and then tell blatant lies that cannot even be considered serious attempts to cover up their crimes.

They cannot be trusted to keep their promises. They have repeatedly assassinated Iranian leaders under the guise of bogus peace talks. They cannot be negotiated with. They must be militarily resisted and defeated. All those responsible for the genocide in Gaza and the criminal war on Iran must be tried, convicted, and imprisoned forever or executed.

This is a global war between good and evil, and we are all on the front lines. Every good person on Earth is now part of Iran’s mosaic defense, and anyone who is not is not a good person.

Thank you and the Iranian people for your heroic struggle and sacrifices on behalf of all humanity. May God protect you, bless you, and grant you victory.

Sincerely,

Kevin Barrett

Rumble link Bitchute link FFWN link

Anyone who listens to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and compares his witty, reasonable, thoughtful, pertinent, reality-based comments to the mad drivel emanating from the likes of Trump and Hegseth and Netanayahu, can see that Iran is the civilized party to the current conflict, while the other side is led by drooling barbarian lunatics. It’s a wake-up slap in the face, but it’s in-your-face-undeniable: We Americans, who like to think of ourselves as the pinnacle of human civilizational achievement, have become stupid, evil, and massively uncivilized. We are the equivalent of frenzied stone age cannibals screeching like rabid hyenas as we try to storm the gates of a highly cultured, literate people in hopes of ripping them to shreds and devouring their flesh.

How did it reach this point? Isn’t the United States of America the world standard-bearer for Enlightenment values: reason, tolerance, reflection, and skepticism of claims that can’t withstand critique? Why are we lined up behind a certifiable narcissist maniac, Donald Trump, whose statements are so randomly incoherent and without any discernible relationship to reality that they are hardly worth critiquing, not to mention almost impossible to satirize?

As a moderately pro-Enlightenment guy who studied literature during the heyday of postmodernism, I’m skeptical of sweeping claims finding patterns of meaning in history. My False Flag Weekly News colleague Dr. E. Michael Jones, who discerns God’s Hegelian hand directing historical dramas, offers interpretations that strike me as brilliant and fascinating but not always convincing. So I am uncharacteristically going out on a limb here by invoking the work of sociologists Strauss and Howe, who have unearthed a pattern of meaning in US history based on generational cycle theory. (I was reading Strauss and Howe long before Steve Bannon made them famous.) Strauss and Howe’s paradigm shines an uncannily plausible light on the current conflict between the West, led by genocidal criminally-insane child-rapists and their blackmailers, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has become the standard-bearer for human civilization.

The Strauss & Howe Paradigm: 80-Year Cycles

Strauss and Howe posit the existence of 80-year cycles, each one represent four 20-year generations. (Keep in mind that I’m simplifying for clarity; some prefer to posit 4 cycles of 21.25 years each producing an 85 year mega-cycle.)

Each roughly 80-year cycle, like a human lifetime, transits through a process of birth, growth, decay, and death.

Each generation does its work, and puts its mark on its era, during early adulthood—between the ages of 20 and 40. The “death and rebirth” phase of the 80-year cycle—including the beginning of each new cycle—is presided over by a “hero generation” that grows up during a crisis or “great unraveling”—a time of feeble institutions, rampant hyperindividualism, and cultural decay—and reacts by going to the other extreme of team-oriented collectivism, including its extreme manifestation, militarism, in order to destroy the old order and create a new, higher order out of chaos.

The elephant in the room of Strauss and Howe’s theory is the uncomfortable fact that every “hero generation” (until now) has “rebuilt order out of chaos” by fighting a horrifically bloody war. The first American hero generation came of age in 1780, the second in 1860, the third in 1940. Notice a pattern? That’s right: Each of those years marked a bloody conflict between “yankees” (progressives/liberals) and conservatives. And in each case, the yankees won.

In 1780, the progressive-liberal yankees or whigs were the Enlightenment-inspired revolutionaries, while their conservative tory opponents championed God and country—the country at that time being the British empire. It was actually a civil war, and a very bloody one, between progressives and conservatives. It wasn’t Americans-versus-foreigners, as children’s history books pretend. Neighbors slaughtered neighbors. Historians today say a little over 40% of North American colonists supported the whig revolutionaries, while approximately half that number were tories, with the rest neutral. Atrocities, chiefly inflicted by progressive-liberal revolutionaries on their conservative opponents, were commonplace.

The same pattern repeated itself in 1860, with what was actually the Second American Civil War. The progressive-liberal yankees or whigs of the North once again committed most of the atrocities as they inflicted another massively bloody defeat upon the God-and-country conservatives or tories of the South, who were fighting for the traditional Constitutional understanding of the relationship between states and the federal government. That hero generation of yankees consolidated central power out of the ruins of the war, turning the USA into a single federally-administered entity rather than a loose confederation of largely independent states.

In 1940, the same kind of civil war erupted, but it was projected outward. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, leader of the liberal-progressive yankee or whig faction, was facing political death during the late 1930s as the Great Depression dragged on. His opponents, the tories, were the God-and-country conservatives of the America First movement. Roosevelt inflicted a bloody defeat on them not directly, as in the two previous civil wars, but indirectly, by orchestrating World War II as a ploy to end the Depression and get re-elected.

“Wait a minute! I thought HITLER started World War II!”

No, if any single historical figure deserves credit or blame for World War II, it’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt. For details, read Ron Unz’s revisionist essays on the subject, including “American Pravda: President Franklin Roosevelt, the Great Depression, and the New Deal.”

As in the two previous American Civil Wars, the yankees of the 1940s committed the worst atrocities: the firebombings of German and Japanese cities, the nuclear obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the mass extermination of Germans during the war’s immediate aftermath. And once again the victors airbrushed their atrocities out of their victors’ histories, portraying themselves as the good guys and their opponents as benighted villains. Like the yankees of 1780 and 1860, those of 1940 excused their bloody escapades by arguing that the newly-empowered yankee government emerging from the ruins would use its centralized powers to enforce justice on the benighted tories. The post-1780 yankees had said their new government would protect property rights and eliminate taxation-without-representation. The post-1860 yankees had bragged that they had ended slavery. The post-1940 yankees claimed they had defeated racism in general and antisemitism in particular. FDR (and later JFK) even had visions of ending European colonialism before they were cut down.

FDR’s party of liberal-progressivist whigs emerged from their (bloodiest-yet, though externalized) American Civil War III with even-more-consolidated-and-tyrannically-centralized federal power. And just as the “hero generations” of 1780 and 1860 had rewritten history to crush the memories and perspectives of their tory opponents, so too did FDR’s yankees erase the leading non-yankee and even antiwar-yankee intellectuals of the 1920s and 1930s from collective memory. For details, I once again recommend Ron Unz’s essays, beginning with “American Pravda: Our Great Purge of the 1940s.”

To summarize, the first three 80-year cycles began with “hero generations” destroying the old order, and creating a new one with increased federal powers by way of an ever-bloodier war. In each case, the yankees (pro-federal-power secularist progressives) defeated the tories (God-and-country limited-government conservatives) and rewrote history to reflect their point of view and erase that of their opponents.

Where Is the Hero Generation, and Great War, of 2020?

Strauss and Howe’s paradigm fits the 80-year-cycles beginning in 1780, 1860, and 1940. But what about 2020? Are the yankees still fighting the tories? And what happened to the bloody war destroying the old order and creating the new one? If the 1861-1865 war was bigger and bloodier than the 1776-1783 war, and the 1939-1945 war was even bigger and bloodier than that, shouldn’t the war that starts around 2020 be the biggest and bloodiest of all?

At first glance, our current situation doesn’t seem to fit the paradigm. Here we are in 2026, and though there are rumblings of a possible civil war between reds (tories) and blues (whigs), nothing on the scale of the 1780 or 1861 civil wars has yet erupted. Nor has our leadership managed to externalize that civil conflict, as FDR did, by inciting an even bloodier war outside our borders…though Trump’s Zionist handlers seem to be working on it.

One discomfiting possible answer: If it’s actually an 85 year cycle, we aren’t quite at “peak destruction” yet.

But keeping in mind that IF a huge “hero generation” conflict was scheduled for 2020, it’s rather uncanny that that very year featured the high point of the red-vs.-blue conflict—the January 6 “insurrection.” The pro-Trump forces, today’s equivalent of the God-and-country tories of yesteryear, have pushed back hard against today’s ultra-progressivist woke whigs, who have gone off the rails with their bizarrely misguided attempts to right the world’s wrongs via federal power enforcing affirmative action, open immigration, LGBTQolatry, and their wars on transphobic Russians, male chauvinist Muslims, and so on.

According to the Strauss and Howe paradigm, we should expect the civil conflict of 2020 to explode into a bloody war, presumably the bloodiest yet, burning down the old order so the secular-progressivist yankees can rebuild it with even more formalized, centralized federal power and even less tradition and religion. Could that, in fact, be what is happening now?

It could be argued that we are currently in the middle of a slow-burn civil war that has been partially externalized into a slow-burn world war. As the reds (tories) fight the blues (whigs) for control of a declining US empire, that empire itself is lashing out in chaotic, poorly-thought-out wars ostensibly aimed at slowing or reversing its decline.

Are we in the middle of Stealth World War III? If so, did it start with the Maidan Coup of 2014 sparking the Russia-vs.-Ukraine (actually Russia-vs.-US) war of 2022? Or was the first shot of Stealth World War III actually the October-November 2019 US bio-attack on China and Iran that triggered the COVID pandemic? Or maybe the most important front is the ongoing US-Israeli war on Iran, whose opening shot was the murder of Gen. Soleimani in 2020, and whose current round threatens to collapse the global economy and transform the international power structure?

Are we living through World War III but not noticing it? Have nuclear weapons forced the belligerents to proceed more cautiously and stealthily than in previous wars? So far, despite seven million deaths from the 2019 American bio-attack on China and Iran, the carnage is far below levels that might have been expected based on the ever-increasing death counts from two previous world wars, not to mention those of the US wars of 1780, 1860, and 1940.

A good case can be made that we are entering a decisive phase in World War III as the Iran front implodes the global economy. The current world war can be described quite simply: The Zionist-occupied US empire is fighting to maintain its position as global hegemon. On the other side, Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and to lesser extents various other states are fighting for their sovereignty—and for a truly multipolar world in which sovereignty would be possible.

The American yankees have won the past three huge wars fought by their earlier hero generations circa 1780, 1860, and 1940. And after each war, the Americans, and their dominant yankee faction, emerged stronger. Will the same happen again?

In a word: No. It seems vanishingly unlikely that the US will not only somehow win its current ill-starred war, but emerge in the postwar period with even more relative global power than it enjoyed in 1946. Barring some deus ex machina like the emergence of hegemonic American AI or the landing of red-white-and-blue flag-waving extraterrestrials, the US empire seems doomed to lose its war for total global hegemony. That’s because the US and its closest Western colonies control an ever-shrinking share of global GDP. The Global South, led by China, has caught up and surpassed the West economically, meaning that power relations will have to be reshuffled to downgrade the West and its imperial hegemon, the United States. That downgrading is precisely what the World War III raging all around us is accomplishing.

So for the first time in US history, a hero generation is going to lose a war. How will that play out domestically?

The most obvious scenario: Trump’s risible simulacrum of a tory (God & country) coalition will go down in flames thanks to their idiotic decision to let Netanyahu goad them into attacking Iran. The 2026 and 2028 elections will together amount to yet another domestic triumph for the whig (secular-progressivist) forces. In other words, just as in the 1780s, 1860s, and 1940s, the whigs will defeat the tories and preside over the rebuilding of a new order from the ashes of the old one.

But this time the whigs will inherit a weakened, humbled, perhaps even humiliated USA. The American power bubble, which kept expanding from its birth in 1776 through the post-Cold War era, will deflate if not pop. The whigs will preside over an America that will no longer fancy itself the biggest and best and brightest, the light unto nations, the eternal winner of all its biggest wars, and of course the ultimate global good guy. They’ll be running a country forced to pay war reparations or maybe even genocide reparations, a country with only two-thirds of the purchasing power it was accustomed to, a country that has lost its Middle East bases and the petrodollar they guard, a country that can no longer afford to plant military bases everywhere and push other countries around, a country that has suddenly become as universally despised as it once was universally admired. The whig ideology of endless progress, endless improvement through governmental and social tinkering, endless problem-solving through endlessly-increasing federal power, is going to take a huge hit. I’m not sure the current hero generation, the millennials, are up to the task of reconstructing an optimistic, progress-worshiping new order under such unpropitious circumstances. But who knows, maybe they’ll make everybody happy, or at least keep them alive, through AI-powered Universal Basic Income, and call it a victory for social justice.

There is also an off chance that the tories, Trump’s MAGA crowd, could actually win this particular civil war. They certainly won the 2020 round, thanks to the Democrats’ spectacular political incompetence. But Trump’s potential to emerge as the leader who could rationally manage the inevitable US retreat from hegemony by drawing down the empire and focusing on domestic priorities (and restoring conservative values) has been sabotaged by the neocons, who are worse than whigs, indeed worse than jacobins. They are, in fact, zio-nihilist lunatics. By hijacking the Trump administration and launching a doomed war on Iran, they have almost certainly ensured a crushing US imperial defeat that will be blamed on Trump and lead to an equally crushing defeat for the tories and the traditional values they espouse.

A 240+-Year Cycle of Birth, Growth, Decay, and Death?

As mentioned earlier, Strauss and Howe posit an 80-year (or perhaps 85-year) cycle, paralleling a human lifetime, beginning with the birth pains of a hero generation, passing through stages of growth and maturity, and finally decaying to set the stage for a new cycle. That roughly 80-year cycle consists of four twenty-year sub-cycles, each representing a generation with a particular set of dominant characteristics.

But what if each 80+-year cycle is likewise a sub-cycle of a larger 320+-year cycle? What if the young adults of 1780 were the founding, hero generation of that larger cycle? Then the young adults of 1860 would be not just a hero generation in the 80 year cycle, but also an artist generation in the 320 year cycle. And the young “hero” adults of 1940 greatest generation would be a prophet generation in the 320-year cycle. Finally, the “hero” millennials of today, who certainly don’t seem all that heroic, would be the nomads—the inhabitants of chaos and unraveling—of the 320 year cycle.

Translating that Strauss-and-Howe nomenclature to the birth, growth, decadence, and death of the United States of America, we posit the birth of the USA circa 1780, its coming to young-adult maturity and consolidating itself circa 1860, its arrival at middle age and its career peak in 1940, and its senescence and demise circa 2020. In other words, the current hero generation of millennials has inherited a nation that is itself somewhere between retirement, death, and putrefaction. No wonder they can’t figure out how to be heroic and come together to fix things.

It’s the Zombie Protestantism, Stupid

The yankee/whig impulse that gave birth to the USA and presided over its growth, maturity, decay, and current collapse itself arose from the Protestant revolt against traditional (Catholic) Christianity. But by the time the USA was founded in 1776 Protestantism was already on the wane. That’s why American yankee/whig progressivism can best be understood by invoking Emmanuel Todd’s notion of zombie Protestantism. According to Todd’s 2024 magnum opus The Defeat of the West, the USA has always been a zombie Protestant society. In other words, prior to the 1776 revolution, American culture was predominantly Protestant. But the American Revolution was driven by deists and other Enlightenment thinkers, and during the course of US history America’s cultural Protestantism became more and more zombified: People continued to live their lives according to Protestant values (the work ethic, self-restraint, personal probity, literacy, individualism, sanctity of property, and so on) even as they gradually stopped believing and going to church. Though the metaphysical foundation of Protestant values had eroded or disappeared, the values themselves, and the behavior they inspired, took longer to wane and finally vanish. But wane and vanish they eventually did, Todd explains, yielding the current situation: total nihilism. Today, the USA is a society of fat, porn-addicted, semi-literate, narcissistic, sociopathic war criminals, as epitomized by their Epstein-blackmailed Commander-in-Chief and his drunken, tattooed Secretary of War. That’s because even the zombie Protestantism is mostly gone, leaving sheer nihilistic depravity in its wake. To call Americans barbarians would be an insult to Conan and his friends.

And that brings us—finally—to Iran. The Iranians, of all people, seem to have been divinely appointed to administer the coup de grace to the reeking, moribund ex-zombie-Protestant-now-Zio-nihilistic US empire. Perhaps that is because today’s Iran is, of all contemporary Western countries, almost uniquely civilized.

Iran qualifies as a Western country because it, like other Western countries, includes as a large portion its cultural basis a blend of Athens and Jerusalem—the classical Greco-Roman tradition overlapping with Middle Eastern Abrahamic monotheism. And while it might be objected that Iran also enjoys its own classical Persian tradition, which itself overlaps not just with Greco-Roman influence but also with the great civilizations of India and China, that doesn’t really detract from its Abrahamic-classical core, which predominates in the seminaries where much of its governing class is educated. More than any other educational system on Earth, the Iranian network of seminaries participates in the great Western tradition of higher education. Students there study Plato and Aristotle and the series of footnotes that followed. They study classical theology and its emanations. They study the great mystics. They study the greatest examples of world literature. And some of them study science, while all of them encourage the advanced study of science in post-1979 Iran’s flourishing scientific and technical institutes and modern universities.

A scholar with a time machine who visited the best higher educational facilities on Earth beginning millennia ago and continuing through today would notice that Iran’s seminaries of 2026 offer the closest modern equivalent of a rigorous classical Western education. The Academy of Athens…Al-Karaouine…Al-Azhar…Oxford…the University of Paris…the great Italian universities…these and similar places are where the great Western tradition flourished and evolved. Today’s secular-materialist vocational schools are as kindergartens compared to the magnificent universities back in the days when Western civilization was rising, not falling…and compared to today’s great seminaries in Iran, where the clerical class implementing Wilayat al-Faqih, the Guardianship of the Jurist, is educated. I have visited seminaries in Qom and participated in discussions there, at least twice in the company of E. Michael Jones, and have been impressed by both the hospitality and erudition of the seminarians. (For a lively portrait of these amazing Iranian seminaries, the last outposts of civilization in today’s New Dark Age, read Roy Mottahedeh’s The Mantle of the Prophet: Religion and Politics in Iran.)

So if America represents nihilist barbarism in the current war, Iran’s leadership class is precisely the opposite: Cultivated, articulate, reflective, spiritual, and carrying the heritage of not only Athens and Jerusalem, but also the treasures of Persian civilization and its elements that blend with East as well as West. Thanks to the Wilayat al-Faqih system founded by Imam Khomeini, Iran’s leadership class is the polar opposite of the Epstein class. They are the products of a lifetime of training in cultivating the higher self and restraining the lower one—rather than the other way around, as is so obviously the case with such vulgar, criminally-insane narcissist imbeciles as Trump and Hegseth, or such demonic monsters as Netanyahu.

So it’s the Great War for Civilization. Iran embodies civilization, while the Zionist-occupied USA is the epitome of nihilist vulgarity.

Today’s American hero generation, the millennials, are going to have to face the unfortunate fact that their entire civilizational project—Protestantism followed by Zombie Protestantism collapsing into nihilism—has run its five-century course. As Emmanuel Todd explains, the only alternative to nihilism is religion. Non-religious ethical/spiritual peoples are just zombies doomed to backslide into nihilism. So if the millennial heroes want to rebuild anything, they’re going to have to rediscover religion of one flavor or another.

For me, as for René Guenon and other Traditionalists, Sufi Islam seems the most sensible alternative for a post-Protestant or post-Christian person or society. But it isn’t clear that most post-Protestant Westerners are smart enough to figure that out. So maybe the millennials will turn to Catholicism, like E. Michael Jones’ followers, or Orthodox Christianity, or Shia Islam (whose spiritual energy is finishing off the Empire of Nihilism)…or perhaps something else entirely. In any case, the coming religious revival is going to have to integrate actual religious experience—what the mystics cultivate, and what ordinary believers “taste” through their rituals and practices—and not just rules, dogmatic verbal formulations, and professions of belief.

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.

Rumble link Bitchute link TruthJihad link

Jim 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.

Kevin

After 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.com

Barrett, 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.edu

Contemporary 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.com

In 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.

Best

Kevin

—-

Jim Hogue interviews Kevin Barrett

Interviewer:
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.

Amazon book link

It’s a beautiful April 1st here in Saidia, Morocco. The sun is shining, the birds are chirping, and the waves are gently lapping the golden Mediterranean shore. What better day to forget the world’s troubles, spread our wings, and fly away…into the world of illustrated 19th-century-style nonsense verse?

Bad Birder’s Birding Report: Nonsense Ornithology from Bad to Verse

Amazon description: This "birding report" is actually illustrated nonsense verse in the tradition of Edward Lear, Lewis Carroll, Gillette Burgess, and Dr. Seuss. Featuring 125 poems and 130 illustrations, it mentions more than 150 species of birds, including virtually all of the most common North American species as well as several "exotics," a few of which may not actually exist. The poems are alternately humorous, ironic, tragicomic, mystical and just plain nonsensical. Together they have created an exciting new avant-garde poetry genre called "birderel," which can mean "doggerel about birds," "doggerel for birders," or (for people who don't like it) "bird drivel." These 100 percent human-crafted poems were illustrated by an AI programmed to commune with the soul of Edward Lear and other great nonsense illustrators. If you have ever seen a bird you will undoubtedly enjoy this book. And if you don't enjoy it you can rip out its pages and use them for birdcage liner, which could be very useful if you live in a birdcage without indoor plumbing. Even in that unlikely event you won't regret your purchase, since ten percent of the net profits will be donated to Abderrahman Shimlali's stork preservation society in Berkane, Morocco.

From the Afterword

Though this book is very far from being an ethics treatise, its nonsense, wit and mysticism are not unrelated to an important ethical obligation: The duty to reveal and honor the truth by annihilating the language-fabricated lies that veil it. That means smashing the monstrous verbal idols that tyrannize us. Today more than ever humanity is being suffocated by the propaganda lies of the powerful. We witness videos of a peaceful protester being gratuitously executed by an officer of the law—and propagandists use buzz-words to convince their audience that the victim is the one attacking the perpetrator. We witness tens of thousands of men, women and children being systematically exterminated in Gaza—and propagandists justify the genocide by calling the victims “terrorists.” We witness three buildings in New York being explosively demolished—and the propagandists tell us that there were no explosions or demolitions, and the buildings just randomly fell down due to relatively minor office fires.

The people who believe the official stories of these and similar events are blinded by language. Propagandists take as their motto Chico Marx’s line “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?” They insist that exploding buildings aren’t really exploding, that the obliterated Gaza moonscape and the tens of thousands of corpses beneath it wasn’t a genocidal massacre, and that ICE officers who get annoyed by protesters and murder them are somehow acting in self-defense. They offer these outrageous, ludicrous lies spiced with emotionally-evocative terms designed to distract and conceal the truth beneath the veil of a self-serving narrative. And people line up behind these obfuscations, buy into one or another version of them, and incorporate them into their very identities.

Nonsense and mysticism attack such lies by unveiling the fabricated, constructed nature of conventional language mistaken for reality. Wit, for its part, can underline the ironic tension between the world of words and the world as it is.

And finally consider the power of imagination…

…Despite all of the above I am not entirely convinced that this book possesses what the Supreme Court used to call “redeeming social value.” To help it do at least a modicum of tangible good I will be donating 10% of the net profits to Abderrahman Shimlali’s stork conservation society. So please buy multiple copies, gift them to your friends, and save some storks!

-Kevin Barrett

Dissociated Press

The FBI has reportedly opened an investigation of Tucker Carlson focusing on the former Fox News host’s suspected disloyalty to Israel.

The investigation, referred to the FBI by the CIA, focuses on allegations that Carlson has failed to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), despite being an agent of the United States of America. Under FARA, anyone who advocates for, or acts on behalf of, any nation other than Israel, even the United States itself, is required to register as a foreign agent.

Foreign agents are defined in § 611(c)(1) of FARA as:

1) Any person who acts as an agent, employee, or under the control of anyone except Israel, and 2) advocates in the interests of anyone except Israel.

Israeli agent Laura Loomer, who has never been suspected of dual loyalties, says she is the one who turned Carlson in as an American agent: “If Tucker “America First” Carlson gets charged for violating FARA…I’m taking credit… You have no idea how relentless I have been in speaking to GOP reps and even reporting Tucker to law enforcement and the DoJ.”

According to legal analysts, anyone who has any contact with citizens of any country other than Israel, and who says anything positive about that country, can be prosecuted under FARA. Tucker Carlson’s extensive contacts with Americans, and his repeated advocacy of the USA and its interests, make him especially vulnerable to charges of being an American agent.

The Justice Department will bring charges against Carlson if they can produce evidence that he has ever made any contact with Americans, especially American officials, in such a way as to suggest that he will be advocating for the interests of the United States of America rather than Israel. To defend himself, Carlson would need to show that the Americans he dealt with were actually controlled by and acting in the interests of Israel, whether due to AIPAC bribes, Epstein-style blackmail, or fear of exploding consumer electronic devices.

If Carlson has ever accepted any money or favors from Americans, he will have to work especially hard to prove that those Americans are actually Israel loyalists. And while his paychecks at Fox News were clearly FARA-compliant, since Rupert Murdoch is a known Israeli operative, Carlson’s independent media operation since then appears to be financed by a very large number of American viewers, some or many of whom may not be fully-vetted Israel loyalists. Proving the pro-Israel bona fides of every American who has subscribed to Carlson’s channel could pose an enormous challenge for the journalist’s legal team.

Regardless of whether Carlson is indicted or convicted, the investigation is expected to have a “chilling effect” on journalists and influencers, who will grow increasingly reluctant to express pro-American views.

A Trump Administration spokesperson explained that in light of the quagmire in Iran, it is of the utmost importance that every American unite in loyalty to one nation and one nation only, the nation that commanded and still commands the war—the holy, sacred, never-to-be-criticized state of Israel. “We can no longer afford to tolerate dual loyalists,” the spokesperson said on condition of anonymity.

The administration spokesperson added that beginning with this year’s baseball season, all sporting events will begin with the Israeli anthem rather than the American one, and that the Fourth of July will be canceled in favor if Israeli Independence Day, which falls on April 22.

Carlson, who was last seen outside his Maine home screaming “what country IS this?” while being dragged away by trained-in-Israel ICE agents, could not be reached for comment.

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link

E. 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. -KB

More 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 Pape

Since 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 Work

I 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.

Dissociated Press

Informed sources report that the world will be ending in a few minutes for reasons that few would have dreamed possible.

Earlier today, former US President Donald J. Trump was divested of his office after Vice President J.D. Vance and a majority of Trump’s cabinet declared in writing to Congress that Trump is a narcissist lunatic suffering from dementia, megalomania, and hallucinations, and is unable to discharge his powers and duties. Trump’s hallucinatory episodes have included claims that Iran offered him the position of Supreme Leader, that “me and the Ayatollah will control the Strait of Hormuz,” and that he has been engaged in negotiations with Iran when in fact no such negotiations have taken place.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that the United States has launched an all-out nuclear attack on Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and several other countries whose leaders may have displeased Trump, and thousands of nuclear missiles have been fired at the US in retaliation.

White House sources explain that Trump somehow managed to smuggle the red button from his desk into his satchel of belongings that accompanied him to the lunatic asylum where he is being treated. The asylum’s security detail mistakenly thought the red nuclear button was an unusually large pill that was part of Trump’s psychiatric medication. The security detail also failed to use the recommended straitjacket, in what experts are calling the worst security failure at a mental or penal institution since Epstein hanged himself.

Sources inside the lunatic asylum report that since pushing the red button Trump has been smirking and dancing to his favorite song, the Village People’s “YMCA.”

Acting US President Vance, who was hustled off by the Secret Service a few minutes ago to the Dick Cheney Memorial 9/11 Bunker deep beneath the White House, could not be reached for comment.

By Kevin Barrett, for American Free Press

Since 1980, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly insisted that Iran is on the brink of developing nuclear weapons. How many times has he made those false claims? I could count them on the fingers of one hand…if I had AI-generated hands with an infinite supply of fingers.

How many times has Netanyahu tried to drag the US into war with Iran? Too many to count on a normal hand, that’s for sure.

And how many times has Netanyahu lied shamelessly on camera? I might need infinite hands with infinite fingers, like Kali, the Hindu goddess of destruction, to tally those up.

Otto Von Bismarck is apocryphally supposed to have said, “Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.” In the case of Netanyahu, I won’t believe anything unless he has denied it at least three times. For example, I was not certain that Israel had killed Charlie Kirk until Netanyahu issued three increasingly strident and unconvincing denials.

Since the second week of the current war, Netanyahu has issued a series of proof-of-life videos. He keeps insisting that rumors of his death have been greatly exaggerated. Why does he feel the need to do that?

In early March, after the dastardly Israeli-American strike on Iran’s top leaders during their meeting to approve a fake “breakthrough agreement,” Iran pounded Tel Aviv with missiles, destroying, among other things, one of Netanyahu’s residences. When the Israeli Prime Minister canceled various appearances and was not seen for ten days, social media lit up with rumors of his demise.

On March 13, Netanyahu filmed a proof-of-life video and posted it on social media. Commenters pointed out that Netanyahu seemed to have six fingers on one of his hands. That’s a common “tell” for an AI fake.

If Netanyahu were alive, skeptics noted, why would his office post AI-generated videos? Israel kept Ariel Sharon on life support for eight years to avoid admitting he was dead. Was this another deception?

But if the tech-savvy Israeli government wanted to claim its dead leader were alive, would it really be unable to generate an AI video showing the correct number of fingers? Maybe the Israelis were deliberately trolling us with a bad AI video? Any way you sliced it, it was a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma.

Two days later, the wanted-for-genocide Prime Minister posted another proof-of-life video. This time he appeared in a Jerusalem coffee shop and flashed the correct number of fingers.

But social media users weren’t convinced. To prove how easily the video could have been faked, they created equally plausible videos showing martyred anti-Israel leaders including Yahya Sinwar, Hassan Nasrallah, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei doing exactly what Netanyahu did in the same Jerusalem coffee shop. The AI avatars of other famous figures, including Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler, also seemingly started visiting the Sataf Café in Occupied Jerusalem.

Two days after making Sataf Café famous, Netanyahu met with US Ambassador Mike Huckabee, who claimed he had been tasked by Trump with verifying that the Israeli PM was alive. Huckabee insisted that the man he met was the real Netanyahu, not an AI avatar or hologram, adding that rumors of the Israeli war criminal’s death were “as phony as a kosher pork chop.” Since then, “Bloody Bibi” has been presiding over cabinet meetings and issuing videos. Unfortunately, he is probably still alive and kicking.

What lessons should we learn from this bizarre controversy? First, billions of people avidly yearn for Netanyahu’s death. They are primed for premature celebration, and will pounce upon any apparent evidence that the biggest villain of the 21^st century has finally bit the dust.

Second, the proliferation of AI videos has changed the world’s epistemological landscape. For decades, videos were better proof than words. For example, all of the official lies about 9/11, totaling in the trillions of words, could be exposed by one seven-second video clip of World Trade Center Building 7 coming down in an obvious controlled demolition.

But now, thanks to AI, a realistic-looking video of an event is no longer strong evidence that the event in question really happened. We need to vet our sources of information now in ways that were less necessary in the past.

Yes, video fakery has always been with us. The Zapruder film, for example, was altered. And some 9/11 videos may also have been altered to support “no planes” theories.

But now, anyone with enough time on their hands can alter or forge screen media far better than CIA-Mossad could in 1963 or 2001. That’s why billions of people no longer believe a pathological liar like Netanyahu even when he films himself truthfully insisting that he is alive.

—-

Please visit: www.americanfreepress.net (AFP) and read Dr. Phil Giraldi’s front page article by clicking on the current issue pictured at the lower right of the home page. The AFP should be required reading for every American interested in the truth concerning virtually everything in the world related to politics and economics. We are being brainwashed by the mainstream media and the only antidote is the difficult to find truth.

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link

Will Trump send Marines to their watery graves off Hormuz…“just for fun”? Will he declare victory and withdraw? Will he attack more energy infrastructure and watch Iran do the same to US allies and “Israel”? More ship sinkings and infrastructure annihilation might be “fun” for Trump, but for the region and the world, not so much.

Trump may be having fun, or pretending to. But every five minutes he contradicts himself. The Commander-in-Chief of the Epstein Empire doesn’t seem to have the faintest idea what he’s doing.

Why is Trump so confused? Is it senile dementia? His drooling narcissism is getting more and more blatant. Some health experts argue that the Orange Rapist is in severe decline and may have only two to four months to live.

In any case, it’s long past time to invoke the 25th amendment.

Or maybe it’s his advisors who are demented? Trump claims that Kushner, Witkoff and Hegseth assured him that regime-changing Iran would be a cakewalk. Are those three stooges deranged, or just dumb? One thing we know for sure is that all three have only superficial knowledge of Iran and its region.

Did any non-idiots—people who know something about military affairs, West Asia in general, and Iran in particular—expect Iran to fold? Were any actual experts surprised by Iran’s highly effective campaign of self-defense?

They’re sure starting to sound surprised. The mainstream media and its credentialed specialists have been saying that Iran is on its last legs ever since the war started on February 28. Lipsticking the proverbial pig is their job. But as the reprisals and counter-reprisals drag on with no end in sight, and the global economy starts to implode, the chattering class has been admitting, sometimes tacitly and sometimes directly, that somebody somewhere seems to have underestimated the Islamic Republic of Iran.

How could experts be so wrong? The likely outcome of this war was not exactly rocket science. I am neither an Iran expert (I don’t speak Farsi) nor a military expert, but I’ve been accurately predicting the all-too-predictable course of this kind of war since around 2003, when I learned how Gen. Paul Van Riper led Iran to a stunning victory over the US in the 2002 Millennium Challenge war games exercises. Since then, the more I learned about Iran, the more I realized that actual Iranians would outperform Van Riper if it came to that.

Though I’m no Iran expert, neither am I ignorant. I’ve been interested in the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution. As a left-leaning anarchist college kid disgusted with the America that had allowed Kennedy’s killers to take over the country unchallenged, I found Khomeini’s project intriguing. When I converted to Islam (tendance Moroccan Maliki-Sufi) in 1993 I became even more sympathetic to Iran’s attempt to implement Islamic values in the political sphere.

In December 2003 I studied 9/11, concluded that the attack on New York and Washington had been a neocon coup d’etat—and realized that Iran, the biggest obstacle to Zionist regional hegemony, was on the chopping block. I revisited my earlier interest in the Iranian revolution, and grew ever-more-sympathetic to its policies and objectives. After a few years combining teaching with 9/11 info-activism, I was driven out of the academy as “that 9/11 truth professor on Fox News,” which left me with nothing better to do than read, speak, and write about the Zio-American war on the Middle East.

As a notable American dissident, I was invited to a conference in Iran in 2013, then re-invited at least once every year until 2019, when the FBI told me I would be arrested if I attended the next conference. I got to know some of Iran’s leading intellectuals, including the late great Nader Talebzadeh, the scholar of Iranian Shia political theory Blake Archer Williams, and professors including Foad Izadi and Mohammad Marandi. I also conversed with other brilliant English-speaking Iranians based outside the country, including the leftist broadcaster and author Ramin Mazaheri. Thanks to those contacts, I learned what the smartest, best-informed Iranians thought about the ever-looming Israel-driven US war on Iran. I compared those viewpoints to those of the best-qualified American experts, including my podcast guests Flynt and Hillary Leverett and Gary Sick. And of course I looked at what the neocons advocating war with Iran were saying. The upshot: The neocons were blowing smoke. The US would get thrashed if any American president were stupid enough to listen to neocons rather than experts.

Since 2015 I’ve been warning that Trump might be that stupid. Or, more precisely, that Trump is a lifelong Kosher Nostra asset selected as a prospective president due to his hostility to Iran—and his potential willingness to risk World War III by attacking Iran for Israel. When Trump lured Gen. Soleimani to Baghdad under cover of fake peace negotiations, then murdered him, in January 2020, I was one of the few pointing out that Iran held escalation dominance over the US and could have responded far more forcefully. In other words, Trump’s reckless move had risked World War III, and only Iranian restraint had limited the damage.

Then again last June, Trump and his owner Netanyahu risked World War III by bombing Iran. And once again, they launched a dastardly surprise attack under cover of fake peace negotiations. Iran responded more forcefully this time, but still showed remarkable restraint by accepting a ceasefire after twelve days.

Underestimating Iran by Interpreting Morality-Based Restraint as Weakness

Some Western strategists seem to have made the fatal mistake of misinterpreting Iran’s restraint—its willingness to limit damages after the Soleimani murder and the June sneak attack—as weakness. These strategists do not understand the moral and spiritual framework of the Islamic Republic of Iran. They think “Iran must be pursuing nuclear weapons, because (psychopathic) game theory says that’s what a player in their situation has to do.” They think “If Iran could really close the Strait of Hormuz and acquire escalation dominance, they wouldn’t have backed down so easily after we killed Soleimani and bombed them last June.”

From Islamic Iran’s point of view, showing restraint is a sign of strength, not weakness. Insecure bullies, like Israel, are the ones who don’t show restraint.

Iran scrupulously follows the Qur’anic version of just war theory, which is very similar to the Christian and secular versions. Islamic just war theory begins with the Qur’anic precept “Fight those in the way of God who fight you, but do not commit aggression: God does not like aggressors.” This is the famous non-aggression principle that libertarians make the cornerstone of their philosophy. It is also the cornerstone of the Islamic approach to human conflict.

Iran’s leaders are more scrupulously Islamic than those of any other nation, with the possible exception of Yemen. That is why they have gone far out of their way to ensure that nobody could possibly see them as aggressors. Since 1979 the overlapping American and Zionist empires have been committing aggression against Iran. It went into high gear in 1980, with the US essentially ordering the CIA hitman-turned-strongman Saddam Hussein to invade Iran. That war lasted until 1988, when Iran had won back all its stolen territory, at the cost of up to a million lives. After that war, the US continued to arm and train terrorists who have been attacking Iran ever since, murdering scientists, political leaders, and tens of thousands of ordinary civilians.

While refusing to commit aggression, and always only waging defensive war, Iran has always made sure its responses to aggression are proportional. This proportionality is based on Qur’anic guidance: “Whoever attacks you, attack them in like manner as they attacked you.” (2:194, 2:190).

Along with proportionality, Iran has gone to extreme lengths to try to achieve peace whenever the enemy is willing to stop fighting. This, too, is a Qur’anic precept: If they stop fighting, you stop too.

• Surah Al-Baqarah (2:192-193): “But if they cease [fighting], then Allah is Forgiving and Merciful” (2:192). “Fight them until there is no more fitnah [persecution/oppression]... But if they cease, let there be no hostility except against the oppressors” (2:193).

• Surah An-Nisa (4:90): “...if they keep aloof from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah does not allow you any way against them”.

• Surah Al-Anfal (8:61): “If they incline towards peace, then you also incline towards it and put your trust in Allah”.

Some Israeli-occupied Americans, who know nothing about Islam, have interpreted Iran’s restraint as a sign of weakness. For example, when Trump killed Gen. Soleimani in 2020, Iran could have struck back much harder than it did, but chose not to for moral reasons. Rather than the kind of massive, lethal response that could have triggered the same all-out war we are in now—a war that Iran has always known it will win—the Iranians warned the US and then struck two bases in Iraq, Ain al-Asad and Erbil, causing over 100 traumatic brain injuries to US soldiers but few if any deaths. Iran’s desire to avoid all-out war was moral: It preferred to avoid or minimize the harm to life and property that war inevitably brings. But Americans and their Zionist occupiers have no conception of moral behavior, so they assumed that Iran only wanted to avoid war because it feared it would lose. Nothing could be further from the truth, as we are seeing now.

Just as Trump had lured Soleimani to Baghdad in 2020 under a false pretext of negotiations, only to strike him dead, the US president and his owner Netanyahu repeated the same ruse last June. Trump instructed negotiators to fool the Iranians into believing that they basically had a deal, causing Iran to let down its guard and facilitating Israel’s murder of top Iranian leaders. This time, Iran’s response was stronger: It pummeled Israel until Netanyahu begged Trump to find a way to end it. Once again, Iran took the off-ramp—not out of weakness, but because the Qur’an demands that “if they stop, you stop.”

On February 28, Trump tried the same trick one time too many. Once again, he used a fake “breakthrough in negotiations” as cover for a dastardly sneak attack aimed at murdering as much of Iran’s leadership as possible…while sacrificing 160 innocent schoolgirls to the Epstein class’s deity, Baal.

Trump-n-Yahoo’s obdurate evil left Iran no choice. “If they commit aggression, fight till they stop.” Unfortunately, the Zionist-occupied Americans seem unable to stop themselves from committing aggression against Iran, and nothing they could possibly say at this point will convince Iran otherwise. So to ensure that the aggression stops once and for all, Iran has committed itself to an existential battle in which the only acceptable outcome is the enemy’s total defeat, meaning the complete removal of his capacity to commit further aggression.

The Axis of Epstein is learning the hard way that Iran is fully capable of achieving that outcome. They chose not to whip America’s tail in 2020 and June 2025 out of restraint, not incapacity.

The Israelis are likewise learning the hard way that Hezbollah’s relative quiet since it accepted the ceasefire of November 2024 was not a sign of weakness. Hezbollah abided by that ceasefire for more than a year, even though “Israel” didn’t, because Islamic ethics, unlike Jewish ones, require that agreements be honored. But ultimately, as “Israel” kept violating the ceasefire and attacking Lebanon every single day, Hezbollah got tired of being “Jewed” by God’s chosen scumbags and has finally responded with tremendous firepower. Again, the Zio-Americans profess shock: Wasn’t Hezbollah kaput since Israel’s terrorist sneak attack using explosive consumer electronics? As always, being immoral psychopaths themselves, the Zionists can’t even imagine the possibility that anyone would take just war theory seriously enough to act with extreme restraint while in a position of strength.

The chosenites’ arrogant contempt for the goyim—their mistaken belief that their enemies’ morality and decency and proportionality and restraint is a sign of weakness—has blown up in their sneering hook-nosed faces. Iran’s, Hezbollah’s, and Yemen’s moral strength has rallied their populations’ morale and energized them to struggle and sacrifice, and endure absolutely any level of suffering, in the path of God, justice, and truth. Meanwhile, the sniveling, cynical, psychopathic Israelis and their fatamerican goyim slaves defecate all over themselves out of fear and subconscious guilt.

No Israeli wants to sacrifice his life for his misbegotten “country.” That’s why they had to blow up the World Trade Center and call in the Americans to do their dirty work for them.

Neither does any fatamerican want to die for Israel…or even for FatAmerica, truth be told. Kill? Sure. But risk death? No way!

If there are any brave American soldiers left, they will join Iran’s war on the cowardly [[[Epstein class]]] that occupies what used to be the United States of America. For as more and more observers, including Nick Fuentes, have been saying, Iran is fighting to free America from a soul-crushing foreign occupation. When the Epstein class is finally defeated by a coalition of Iranians and patriotic non-Zionist-owned Americans, let’s all pray that the new leadership—Christians like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens and Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene, perhaps joined by a few leftists like Ro Khanna and Jews like Jeffrey Sachs and Max Blumethal—will bring America the kind of confident, restrained, rigorously ethical leadership that Iran has been enjoying since 1979.

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.

I moved to Morocco in July 2023. One reason I’m glad to be here, rather than in the United States of Epstein, is that Moroccans strongly support the Palestinian Resistance. In America, being pro-Hamas is practically illegal: Americans are forced to kiss the Jewish boot and keep their mouths shut. Not so in Morocco, where anyone who didn’t love the Resistance, revere its martyrs, and pray for its victory would be in the minority.

And now, as Operation Epstein Fury turns into the mother of all quagmires, Americans are cowed by their Epstein-class Jewish masters into mumbling obligatory disclaimers like: “I don’t support Iran, but…” Or, “This war may be stupid, but I really hate those mullahs who don’t let Iranian women go nude in public and work for OnlyFans.”

Not so Moroccans. Here, people you run into in the shops, streets, and cafés make no bones about cheering for Iran.

But I have to admit I was a bit surprised (not to mention pleased) to discover the ubiquity and intensity of pro-Iran sentiment in the streets of Morocco. Why? Because the Moroccan government has mounted a decades-long anti-Iran propaganda campaign, and to a certain extent, the low-information segment of the population has bought into it.

Why does the Moroccan government have a problem with Iran? It’s the geopolitics, stupid. Morocco’s biggest, existential issue is its territorial integrity, meaning its control over its threatened Saharan territories, which Algeria has been trying to pry loose since the 1960s, deceptively framing the issue as a “national liberation struggle of the Sahraoui people.” In reality, there were originally only around 80,000 Sahraouis in those territories—far too few to constitute a genuinely independent nation. So the “Sahraoui liberation struggle” was always only a cover story for Algeria’s attempt to capture those territories from Morocco, and thereby gain immense resources and access to the Atlantic ocean.

Unfortunately, Iran has aligned itself with Algeria, for some good reasons as well as bad ones, and embraced the Algerian perspective on the bogus “liberation struggle of the Sahrouis.” Morocco has accused Iran and/or its allies of training the Polisario guerrillas who serve as Algeria’s shock troops in its war of aggression against Morocco. There is probably some truth to those claims.

So the Moroccan government, and indeed the Moroccan people, don’t like Iran’s support of forces that Moroccans view as an existential threat to their country. For that reason, the Moroccan government has, unwisely but understandably, mounted a mendacious propaganda campaign against Iran focusing on Iran’s alleged “Shia radicalism.” That propaganda campaign grossly exaggerates the Shia aspect of Iran’s Islamic revolution, demonizes Shia Islam, implicitly embraces the Wahhabi Islam of the Gulf despots, and contributes to the sectarianism that prevents the Islamic Ummah from unifying in support of its own interests.

Even before moving to Morocco, I had enough conversations with Moroccans to be shocked by some of their common misconceptions about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Some Moroccans seem to think that every Iranian is a Shia extremist who flagellates himself on Ashura, spits on the graves of three of the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs, engages in promiscuity under the cover of “temporary marriage,” and tirelessly devotes himself to converting Sunni Muslims in general, and Moroccans in particular, to these and other deviant beliefs and practices.

As a former university lecturer in Islamic Studies who has been to Iran nine time since 2013, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of a convert forced to lecture to natural-born Muslims, who often seem to think that they are the ones who should be lecturing me. When I tell them that only a minuscule minority of Iranians flagellate themselves on Ashura, despise the three caliphs, and practice temporary marriage, they evince shock and bafflement, because their government propagandists have been promoting the lies for decades. “But…but…I saw some YouTube video where an extremist Shia guy was defending those practices! And I’ve seen videos of the flagellators flagellating themselves!” Indeed you have, because the minuscule minority of “radical Shia” Iranians who do such things get massively boosted by the Zionist-owned algorithms. The Zionists WANT you to think that all Iranians are that crazy, in the same way they want Westerners to think that all Sunni Muslims are as crazy as Anjem Choudary, the London-based MI6 nutjob who used to get massive and completely undeserved coverage in the [[[Western mainstream media.]]]

All of the Supreme Leaders of Iran, as well as leaders of allied movements like Hezbollah, have strongly advised their Shia followers NOT to flagellate themselves and NOT to insult caliphs. Though they claim that temporary marriage is better than promiscuity, and not haram, they do not encourage it, and fewer than 10% of Iranians practice it. I am sorry to say that the percentage of Moroccans who have engaged in worse things than temporary marriage is probably higher than that.

Moroccans also have been brainwashed into thinking that Iran is monolithically Shia, rather in the same way that Morocco is monolithically Maliki. That’s not true. While it is true that about 90% of Iranians are Shia, the other 10% includes Sunni Muslims, various denominations of Christians, Jews, and even Zoroastrians. The only “religion” that isn’t tolerated in Iran is Bahai, because it is viewed as a Zionist cult, not a religion. The Iranian government supports and to some extent sponsors all of these non-Shia groups. In short, there is considerably more religious freedom and diversity in Iran than there is here in Morocco.

That surprises Moroccans, because they have been browbeaten into believing that Iran is 100% Shia fanatics who are maniacally trying to convert everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, to Shiism. A handful of very minor, lightly-funded Shia proselytizing efforts in Morocco have been grossly exaggerated by the propagandists, who cast these laughably insignificant campaigns as threats to Morocco’s Sunni identity. In reality, over the past 50 years, Saudi Arabia has probably spent more money per month pushing Wahhabi Islam in Morocco than Iran has spent on comparable pro-Shia efforts over those entire 50 years!

And globally, the discrepancy even greater. Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf oil tyrannies have probably spent thousands of times more money pushing Wahhabism than Iran has spent pushing Shiism.

Yes, Iran does sometimes “meddle” in other countries. But its main focus is not on promoting Shiism. It’s on supporting oppressed people against their oppressors. The Iranians don’t care whether you’re Sunni or Shia, whether you’re Christian or Muslim or agnostic or atheist. If they see you as a member of an oppressed group, they will help you push back against your oppressor. That’s why Iran is the main sponsor of the Sunni Palestinian resistance group Hamas. That’s why Iran supports the AnsarUllah movement in Yemen, whose religious interpretations are closer to Sunni Islam than to Twelver Shia Islam. That’s why Iran supports the Baathists and leftists and Alawites and Sunnis who make up the anti-Zionist coalition in Syria. That’s why Iran supports the Christians of Armenia against their Azerbaijani Shia oppressors. And that’s why Iran has supported the left-wing Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela, as well as aligning itself with “liberation theology” Catholicism in Latin America.

It’s really too bad that the Moroccan government echoes Zionist propaganda lies about Iran and its majority religion, Shia Islam. Morocco’s predominant school of thought, Maliki Sufism, is a robust and attractive interpretation. It can stand on its own two feet, defend itself truthfully, and argue persuasively against other approaches. It doesn’t need to rely on Zionist-fueled mendacity.

By falsely portraying Morocco’s geopolitical conflict with Iran as a sectarian religious issue, the Moroccan authorities are shooting themselves in the foot. While their lies about Shia Islam have gotten some traction among low-information (i.e. stupid and/or uninformed) Moroccans, the smarter people here see through the lies and ask themselves:

“If this is really a Shia vs. Sunni issue, as the propagandists insist, then why is it that the ‘Shia’ are the ones defending the Muslim Ummah in Palestine and Lebanon and pretty much everywhere else, while the ‘Sunnis’ are betraying the Ummah in the most cowardly and disgusting fashion imaginable—in some cases even making common cause with the genocidal Zionist Dajjal? Maybe the Shia are the real Muslims! Maybe the Sunni interpretation of Islam is mistaken!”

But the problem isn’t with Sunni Islam per se. As Hamas has shown, Sunni Muslims can be just as courageous and heroic and righteous as Shia Muslims.

The problem is that the political leaders of Sunni-majority countries are almost all some combination of pragmatic and cowardly...not to mention corrupt and un-Islamic. When a good one arises, like Imran Khan in Pakistan, the [[[Epstein class]]] quickly makes him a martyr.

But that isn’t due to some inherent defect in Sunni Islam. It’s really just an accident of history. There have been plenty of quiescent apolitical, and/or corrupt Shias throughout history, just as there have been plenty of noble, courageous, and spotless Sunnis. It just so happens that due to a long list of historical factors, the Shia leadership today is, by and large, better than its Sunni counterpart.

Personally, I think the best approach today is to follow Sheikh Imran Hosein’s advice to just be a Muslim, and forget all the other labels. That helps us overcome the divide-and-conquer strategy that [[[the Epstein class]]] is foisting on us.

Meanwhile, I wish the Moroccan authorities would stop lying to their people, and instead mount a more truthful defense of their own views and interests. If you don’t like the fact that Algeria (a Sunni country, by the way) is trying to steal the Moroccan Sahara, and Iran is supporting Algeria, why not drop the lies about Shiism and instead argue (truthfully) that the Polisario is not a bona fide movement of oppressed people fighting for a righteous cause, but rather a pawn in a geopolitical game aimed at keeping Morocco and Algeria fighting each other for the benefit of the [[[global Epstein class]]]? That way, you might have a chance of convincing Iran, and maybe even Algeria someday, to change their policies.

I can easily imagine Iran, after it emerges victorious from its current heroic war against the Great and Little Satans, rethinking its misguided support for the Polisario, and instead helping broker peace and restored relations between Morocco and Algeria. That would require Morocco tilting a bit further away from the [[[Epstein-class-owned]]] West and towards the Global South and BRICS axis, which of course is the wave of the future. China is already a bigger Moroccan trading partner than the US, and the trend is accelerating, so this is not an unrealistic possibility.

In closing, I must admit that one of the things I love about Morocco, alongside the food, hospitality, family values, café culture, and Sufi-tinged approach to Islam, is its relatively laid-back attitude towards diversity of opinion. If I were living in any other Arab country, I would hesitate to publish an essay accusing my host government of propaganda lies about such a sensitive subject as religious identity. But Morocco, though it may not be a free speech paradise—anybody who poses a genuine threat to social peace or government authority runs a risk here, as everywhere else—is a pretty tolerant place in which people arguing thoughtfully for whatever perspective or cause are generally left alone unless there is a very strong reason not to. Indeed, Moroccans welcome lively intellectual debates, and (unlike certain other Arabs, not to mention Jews) are not at all eager to incarcerate or persecute people with whom they disagree.

That’s one reason that ordinary Moroccans feel free to uninhibitedly express their fervent support for Iran’s heroic struggle against the [[[global Epstein class]]]. Even decades of propaganda, and ubiquitous Zionist-owned algorithms, couldn’t convince them not to.

Rumble link Bitchute link

Dissociated Press

US President Donald Trump has raised eyebrows by claiming that he knows more about knowing more about everything than anyone else ever has. At a press conference this morning outside the Jeffrey Epstein Memorial Ballroom, Trump made what he called a “very important announcement: Nobody knows more about knowing more about everything than I do. I know everything there is to know about knowing everything and then some.”

Trump added that not only does he know everything there is to know about knowing everything there is to know about everything, but he actually knows even more than that, but rarely talks about it due to modesty.

Trump went on to say that he knows more about physics than physicists, more about medicine than doctors, more about war than generals, more about economics than economists, more about law than lawyers, more about outer space than astronomers, more about dinosaur fossils than paleontologists, and more about teenage pussy than Jeffrey Epstein. “And I know how to grab ’em by it too, better than anybody.”

Pausing briefly to wipe the spittle from his chin, Trump added:

“And last but not least, don’t let me forget: I know more about narcissism than psychiatrists!”

Trump’s personal psychiatrist, Dr. Bandy Lee, could not be reached for comment.

Eurabiamania 164: The Third Gulf War, Week 2 (Pt. 2) 🇮🇷🚀🇮🇱🔻🇺🇸💥

With Special Guests: Malcom Kyeyune, Kevin Barrett, Najji, Nova Scotia Tony

Preliminary story list for this week’s FFWN is up!

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link

Dear 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 shit.

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.

Sincerely

Dr. Kevin Barrett

PS 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.