Rumble link Bitchute link TruthJihad link

Live Press TV interview broadcast 6/11/26 @13:15 pm Quds Time

KEVIN BARRETT:
Well, once again, we’ve seen that Trump and the Americans are lashing out in frustration because they’ve lost the war. They lost within the first 24 to 48 hours, and they have no more realistic options. They’ve bombed all the military targets they can bomb with massively diminishing returns, and so now they’re going after civilian targets. The New York Times just reported on its front page this morning that the destruction of two reservoirs in Bamani, in southern Iran, appears to be a war crime. If the New York Times is telling us that the American government is committing an obvious war crime by targeting civilian drinking water, and they’re putting that on their front page, you know there is some dissension going on, and some strategic problems, afflicting the command and control of the American empire.

So basically Trump is lashing out, vacillating between ridiculous exaggerated threats and equally ridiculous exaggerated claims that peace is at hand so the markets should be happy in order to help Trump’s and the Republicans’ prospects in the upcoming elections. He also probably would like to calm things down in time for the World Cup because the Americans are already getting all kinds of terrible publicity around the ways that they’re treating people. They’re not even allowing the Iranian team to sleep in the United States. They have to take a three hour flight into the United States, and then fly out that same day. It’s ridiculous. And they’re treating fans in similar ways, turning people back who have perfectly good visas and so on, and subjecting people to torture as they try to get through American immigration.

So the Americans are looking terrible in front of the world right now, and Trump doesn’t want them to look even worse, as it’s obvious that he’s lost this war. But what can he do? Bomb civilian facilities? Meanwhile, Iran is hitting military targets. Iran hit, I believe, 21 different US bases across the region, and apparently hit a hangar in Jordan containing advanced U.S. aircraft, F-35s.

So, once again, the same pattern keeps emerging, where Iran remains disciplined, goes after military targets, and goes after strategic assets like control over the Strait of Hormuz. The United States, with nothing military or strategic that it’s capable of doing, just lashes out and then Trump’s mouth lashes out as well.

PRESS TV:
Kevin Barrett, why isn’t Donald Trump trying to cut his losses? Domestically, his approval ratings are awful. The economy is being affected with this unwarranted war. Regionally, I think, the U.S.’s reputation has taken a massive hit. One would think that instead of convoluting the situation even more, adding more knots to what already is, that the Trump administration, Donald Trump itself would be trying to cut his losses, but that’s not happening.

KEVIN BARRETT:
Well, Trump has personality issues. As Bandy Lee wrote back maybe 10 years ago, Trump is clearly a pathological, narcissistic sociopath. And he has delusions of grandeur, as we see in all of these tweets where he tweets himself as Dr. Jesus and all these things. He’s the last person on earth that could ever admit they made a mistake.

So had he been a rational human being, and then had Trump even been minimally rational, as soon as it became clear within the next 24 to 48 hours after that attack on February 28th that it wasn’t going to work, that’s when Trump should have laid the blame on Netanyahu and gotten the hell out. That’s when he could have cut his losses to an absolute minimum. And he still would have had to deal with Iran running the Strait of Hormuz, but he wouldn’t have been in this position where the Americans just keep digging this hole and they’re going deeper and deeper and deeper. You’re supposed to stop digging when you’re in that situation, but apparently Trump and his advisors don’t know that.

And part of the reason (for US inability to cut its losses) along with this unfortunate personality of Trump’s, is the fact that not just Trump but the American government in general is largely influenced if not controlled out of Tel Aviv. And the Israelis are in a terrible strategic situation. They are seeing that their dreams of regional hegemony evaporate as Iran and its allies assert themselves in the region, gain control over the Strait of Hormuz, potential control over the Red Sea, and escalation dominance with their missile force that can’t be touched since it’s in underground storage. And suddenly Israel sees its dreams going up in smoke, and all they can imagine doing is continuing to force their American vassal, from whom they collect trillions of dollars of tribute, to bleed itself digging this hole deeper and deeper.

So how does this all end? I think ultimately they are going to somehow have to cut their losses. And maybe Netanyahu going down will be the way it all pans out, and the Zionist entity will then appoint new leadership, try to blame Netanyahu for their excesses and failures. And then maybe Trump will again try to shift that blame to Netanyahu and try to find a way to wriggle out. But Iran’s going to be on top when that happens.

PRESS TV:
Kevin Barrett, let’s also talk about the Iranian response to the Israeli attacks that took place in the south of the Lebanese capital, Beirut, in the Dahia district. So Iran, it held its word. It kept up its word. It said if an attack. He also said that the ceasefire must encompass the entire resistance front. How significant was that, seeing the retaliation being carried out against the Israelis by these.

KEVIN BARRETT:
Well, this case of Iran drawing a red line and then acting when it was crossed actually changes the whole regional equation, as all the observers, including Western observers, are admitting. Prior to this, Iran was so restrained that it really never, ever hit anybody unless it was hit itself. And now Iran drew that red line around Beirut and said if Israel goes ahead and bombs Beirut, then Iran will retaliate.

This raises the possibility that Iran can now dissuade and deter the Zionist entity from its most egregious excesses, potentially not only from bombing Beirut, but perhaps even ultimately forcing the Zionist entity to withdraw from places like the parts of Gaza that it occupies, as well as southern Lebanon. And if to the extent that this happens, we will have to see some major radical change in leadership in Tel Aviv. They’re going to have to admit failure. And that’s probably going to require scapegoating Netanyahu and coming up with new leadership. And it won’t be that much better. It’ll be devoted to genocide and expansion. But they’re going to have to admit that they lost this round. So Iran’s drawing this red line around Beirut and then standing by it and punishing the Zionists for crossing that red line completely changes the regional equation.

PRESS TV:
Kevin Barrett, you mentioned the IAEA resolution the anti-Iran resolution where the Board of Governors they adopted this anti-Iranian resolution that happened on Wednesday. The resolution has been called everything from being flawed to being illegal as well. Is there a big question mark right now over the legitimacy and with it the independence and reputation of the IAEA?

KEVIN BARRETT:
Well, the IAEA has shown that it’s a corrupt cat’s paw for this evil empire that’s ruling the world through nuclear threats. The Zionist entity is the world’s worst case of nuclear proliferation. They are not signed on to the NPT in any way shape or form. They’re blatant serial violators. They stole the nuclear material to build hundreds of nuclear weapons from the United States, with the help of the Kosher Nostra organized crime ring that dominates the United States. And so the IAEA was actually complicit in the war on Iran by putting out their resolution essentially seeming to give some kind of justification for the attack on Iran. And so they have a terrible record and this is not going to help. Ultimately they’ve been proven irrelevant and the world is going to have to come up with some new institutions to deal with the problem of proliferation.

Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees.

“Everybody hates Israel.”

Though Trump tells bigger, crazier lies than any president in history, he also drops an occasional truth bomb. Screaming at Netanyahu that “everybody hates Israel” went off with a multi-megaton detonation.

When Trump yelled Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this his immediate reference was Netanyahu’s order to bomb Beirut. But Trump’s this implied much more. Though the majority of the world, led by the Global South, has always hated Israel, Zionist domination of Western media has long conditioned Western publics to condone the endless exterminations and war crimes. So it wasn’t quite everybody—just most of the planet—that hated Israel…until now. As Trump screamed truthfully at Netanyahu, loathing of Dog Rape Nation is currently well-nigh universal.

In the past, when the Zionist Entity did unpopular things, it took its PR lumps and moved on, aided by the Jewish billionaires who have bought up most of the media and intimidated the rest. But today, everyone under 65 curates their own news on social media, where Iranian LEGO videos, clips of Zionist atrocities, drone-filmed Gaza moonscapes, and self-owns like IDF soldiers bragging about shooting children and dressing up in the panties of the women they’ve murdered grossly outweigh the vapid Zionist BS.

Obviously the Zionists would like to find a way to “take their PR lumps and move on”.. or more precisely, move back to the pre-October-2023 world in which Israel had not quite fully demolished its own legitimacy. But putting the genocide toothpaste back in the tube won’t be easy. Paramount/CNN/HBO/WarnerBros/MTV/Nickleodeon owner Larry Ellison buying TikTok and imposing pro-genocide algorithms, then buying CBS and promoting Bari Weiss far beyond her level of competence, won’t cut it. Neither will trying to force a bill through Congress that would make the entire US military-intelligence apparatus a wholly-owned subsidiary of Israel. Nor will primarying Thomas Massie and Al Green, while failing to primary Graham Platner, Daniel Biss, Kat Abughazaleh, and Analilia Mejia, cut the proverbial kosher mustard.

The desperate Zionists are going to have to tap into one of humanity’s deepest and ugliest hard-wired proclivities: scapegoating. And I’m not just talking about scapegoating Muslims, like they did when they blew up the Twin Towers and blamed it on Bin Laden. Scapegoating Muslims comes with the Zionist territory: Hollywood has been one big anti-Muslim anti-Arab propaganda factory at least since the 1970s, and they’ve been doing false flags blamed on their Arab-Muslim enemies since the King David Hotel bombing and the Lavon Affair. Neither the propaganda films nor the false flags will end any time soon.

What’s new, this time, is that they may scapegoat one of their own: namely, the notorious Polish war criminal Binyamin Mileikowsky, who operates under the assumed name Netanyahu. Bibi, a born furniture salesman, was, like Bari Weiss, promoted far beyond his level of competence. But the silver-tongued Bibi proved so good at selling genocide furniture that he talked his supremacist settler colony into a series of excesses that culminated in the genocide of Gaza, the escalating West Bank pogroms, and now the blowback-plagued losing war on Iran and its Lebanese, Yemeni, and Iraqi allies.

None of this was entirely Netanyahu’s fault. His whole society of sick, depraved rapists and child-killers is responsible. Zionism, the inherently supremacist and genocidal ideology, is the problem.

But the Zionists obviously won’t admit that. They need to obfuscate, to misdirect, to convince the world to blame someone or something other than themselves, their supremacist culture, and their genocidal ideology.

Trump, who has been owned Jewish Zionist criminals, and served as their frontman and mouthpiece, for his entire adult life, would not go off on Netanyahu that way unless he cleared it first with his Zionist masters. By publicly dressing down Netanyahu, Trump may not have just fired a warning shot across Bibi’s proverbial bow. He may, in fact, be signaling that Netanyahu is going to be thrown under the proverbial bus, thrown off the proverbial cliff…in short, scapegoated.

Scapegoating: A Quintessentially Jewish Thing

Ritual scapegoating is quintessentially Jewish. The term “scapegoat” (עֲזָאזֵל or Azazel) originates from the ancient Hebrew ritual of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). Every year, on that high holiday—the holiest single day on the Jewish calendar—the Jews ritually transfer the collective sins, guilt, and impurities of their community onto a goat, and then expel or destroy it to achieve symbolic purification. In the Second Temple Jewish tradition, the scapegoat was led to a high cliff outside Jerusalem and pushed off to its death.

Today, the genocidal Jews of Israel are so stunningly sinful—so cartoonishly evil—that no mere goat could carry all their sins over the cliff. But that doesn’t mean they won’t try. And the goat upon whom they may try to load all those sins is none other than Netanyahu.

But which cliff should they throw him off? I asked Gemini: “Can you suggest a high cliff outside Jerusalem that would work for the scapegoat ritual today?” Gemini waxed enthusiastic:

The primary historical and geographic location that would fit this ritual today is Jabel Muntar (also known as Mount Azazel or Jabal al-Mintar), located in the Judean Desert.

According to centuries of Jewish tradition, historical texts, and modern archaeological consensus, this specific peak is the exact mountain where the ancient scapegoat ritual was performed.

Location: Situated in the West Bank/Judean Desert badlands, roughly 12 miles (approx. 19 km) east of the Old City of Jerusalem, directly between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea.

The Terrain: It is the highest peak in that specific region of the northern Judean Desert. The eastern face of the mountain features the stark, steep, and jagged limestone escarpments required by the ritual to ensure the animal would not survive the fall.

Historical Alignment: The distance matches the ancient descriptions in the Mishnah (Yoma 6:4), which states that the scapegoat was led from the Temple through 10 designated wilderness waystations over a distance of roughly 12 miles before reaching the cliff edge.

If the Elders of Zion choose Netanyahu to carry off all the sins of Israel next September 21, here is how they will do it.

First the High Priest (Naftali Bennett?) will conduct the Transfer of Sins by laying both hands on Netanyahu’s head and confessing aloud all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites. (A full confession of every dog-rape, assassination, false-flag, baby-kill, big lie, etc. would take centuries if not millennia, so Bennett will have to deliver a concise, heavily-redacted summary.) By this method, Bennett will symbolically transfer the Jewish/Israeli people’s guilt onto Bibi “Bad Billygoat” Netanyahu.

Next comes the banishment: The Bibi-goat will be led by a rabbi into the wilderness, effectively carrying the community’s impurities away from the genocidal settler colony. After the long, grueling trek, the Bibi-goat will arrive at the Jabel Muntar cliff and be pushed to its death to banish those nasty old sins once and for all. Cleansed of last year’s sins, the Israelites will be refreshed and energized and divinely authorized to commit new ones.

Israel in general, and Bennett in particular, could gain bigly by scapegoating Netanyahu. First of all, think of the ratings! The whole world would tune in to the live coverage of Netanyahu being led up Jabel Muntar and thrown off the cliff.

But would the world be fully convinced that all the terrible things Israel has done were all the fault of one man, Benjamin Netanyahu, and that now that he has been tossed off the nearest cliff, everything will go back to normal, with the genocidal Zionists returning to their old role as the good guys, and their Palestinian victims the terrorist heavies?

Good luck with that one, Bennett. The world has seen the genocide, can’t unsee it, and will sooner or later be coming to throw you, and the whole Zionist project, off that same cliff.

—

Note: René Girard famously argued that scapegoating is hard-wired into humanity. He saw animal sacrifices as stand-ins for the human sacrifices that he argued have always been the central mechanism for establishing and maintaining social solidarity. In Girard’s Christian interpretation, the scapegoat is always innocent: We are all sinners, so even if the criminal we lynch is a depraved, child-killing dog-rapist, we ourselves are not without sin, so we shouldn’t cast the first stone.

Girard, like most other postwar goyim, bought into the Jewish supremacist notion that Jews are primordial victims, spotless innocents who are ceaselessly and gratuitously persecuted by antisemites. As Randy Fine says, Jews have been kicked out of every place they have ever lived “and it’s never been our own fault.” In the wake of World War II and the subsequent canonization of the Holocaust narrative, the sacred myth of the Jew as eternal victim has enabled the Jewish genocide of Palestine—and the Jewish subjugation of non-Jews in Western finance, media, and politics.

While I find much that is useful in Girard, I think we need to exercise discernment and make a distinction between the irrational persecution of innocent scapegoats as a social control mechanism, which Girard ably described and analyzed, and the punishment of the wicked, which is not entirely the same thing. When God and man combine to chastise the Jews, once again, for their collective behavior, it won’t exactly be a case of Girardian persecution-of-the-innocent.

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link (recorded Sunday, minutes after news broke of Israel crossing Iran’s red line by bombing Beirut)

“Crazy Bibi” could have made good money selling furniture in Philadelphia: “Hurry, hurry, hurry, these prices are f*ing crazy!” Instead, he’s running Israel’s going-out-of-business sale, peddling tens of thousands of corpses of Palestinian and Lebanese women and children, while the world is no longer buying his excuses.

Bibi could have made even more money in commodities speculation: “Come on down, hurry, get your August oil futures—these prices are REALLY f*ing crazy!”

But Bibi has one Trump card and he’s playing it for all it’s worth. Though we can’t be sure what’s on the card—is it Trump performing a sex act on Bill “Bubba” Clinton as stated by Jeffrey Epstein in an email to his brother, or something even worse?—it’s obvious that Bibi is the butch and Trump is the femme, mirroring the Roy Cohn-Trump “mentorship,” meaning that Netanyahu just keeps leading Trump around on a leash, ignoring the Orange Poodle’s pathetic little yelps.

That’s why when Trump tells Netanyahu not to strike Iran, Netanyahu gives Trump the proverbial finger and bombs Tehran anyway.

But you know what’s really f*ing crazy? I’ll tell what’s f*ing crazy: Israel is conducting a hostile takeover of the US military. If there is a reason that every politician who supports this shouldn’t be summarily executed for treason, please let me know in the comments, because I can’t think of one.

As I write this Monday at 1 pm Quds Time, corresponding to 6 a.m. US Eastern, it isn’t yet clear whether the US will be fully dragged into the revved-up Iranian-Israeli hostilities. But I wouldn’t bet against it. Even pre-hostile-takeover, the Israeli-US war on Iran is a joint effort, and the US is obviously the junior partner. Essentially Israel’s entire military is being provided free of charge by the US taxpayer. It’s the US, not Israel, that used up half of its entire arsenal of THAAD interceptors protecting the genocidal Zionist entity occupying Palestine. There is no reason to think Trump will actually use all of that theoretical leverage provided by the fact that the US taxpayer completely pays for the fake state of “Israel” in order to gain any meaningful degree of separation from the “f*ing crazy” mad dog terrorizing West Asia.

If “Israel” succeeds in embroiling the US and its Gulf vassals in major escalation, not only will what’s left of US bases in the region be pummeled, and US ships damaged and perhaps sunk, but the Red Sea will likely be closed by Iran’s Yemeni allies, driving global oil prices towards the Götterdämmerung that everybody except the futures markets has been predicting. What’s more, I wouldn’t bet on the life support systems in Zionist-occupied places like Kuwait and especially the UAE continuing to support life. Without electricity for air conditioning and desalinization for potable water, those so-called countries will barely be fit for snakes and lizards. Message to Linh Dinh, who rashly flew to Dubai a few days ago: Please remove yourself from the “plastic asshole of the universe” (Faulkner thought it was LA but he hadn’t seen Dubai) before the lights go out and the taps run dry!

Are there any American national security insiders getting tired of “Israel” dragging the US, West Asia, and the world into complete ruin? Possibly. A few days ago someone leaked a story to The New York Times about the Pentagon facing a “growing espionage threat from Israel.” (How much greater the Mossad threat could possibly get after they’ve already killed a president and his about-to-become-president brother, slaughtered US sailors on an unarmed spy ship 59 years ago today, and blown up the Twin Towers in the mother of all false flags, remains to be seen…)

Max Blumenthal reported an interesting detail about the “growing Israeli espionage threat”: The Mossad got caught planting bugs in the Secret Service vehicle that would lead the response to any emergency involving the president. If you had contingency plans for another assassination of a sitting president you might want to do something like that.

But there’s no obvious reason why Israel would want to assassinate Trump, who services Bibi with barely a peep of protest. So maybe they’re bugging the Secret Service emergency vehicle just to send a message: “Because we can!”

Ever since Trump let Netanyahu drag him into the idiotic and criminal February 28 attack on Iran, and the Iranians responded by seizing permanent control over the Strait of Hormuz, Trump has been flailing around desperately trying to minimize the public perception of the size and scope of the disaster, while reassuring markets that everything will be soon returning to normal. Daily distractions, alongside occasional obfuscations, have sufficed to keep markets from fully facing the terrible truth.

Now that the war is exploding again, what new distractions await us? Humorists note that if war on Iran was a distraction from Epstein, now Trump needs more Epstein revelations as a distraction from his ever-more-disastrous war on Iran. But from Trump’s perspective, an even better distraction would be aliens abducting Steven Spielberg and landing on the White House lawn as a PR stunt for Spielberg’s new film Disclosure Day. (Spielberg denies conspiracy theories that his film will be grooming the public to believe in aliens, but then, he also denied that Schindler’s List was grooming the public to believe in the Holocaust, so it’s best to take anything he says with a proverbial grain of salt.)

Will the aliens arrive just in time to watch Trump serve as ring girl when Bibi MCs the first big UFC fight at the White House?

And would “aliens land to watch UFC fight at White House” succeed in distracting the public, and the markets, from the Zionist-incited total implosion of Earth’s economy?

Or maybe they’ve got an even bigger distraction up their sleeves. If and when they whip it out on us, you can bet that False Flag Weekly News will be there to expose the sordid, shocking truth.

Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees.

American Free Press

On May 18, Israeli commandos attacked 54 civilian boats carrying food and medical supplies to Gaza. The boats were near Cypress, nearly 300 miles from Gaza, in international waters.

The Israelis fired at the boats and kidnapped 428 unarmed humanitarian activists. Those people were never charged with any crime. How could they be? When kidnapped, they were exercising their right to sail in international waters. It was the Israelis who were committing the crime of maritime piracy, which carries a penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment.

But piracy and kidnapping were just the initial crimes. Sexual assault, rape, and torture followed. It began almost as soon as the Israeli pirates boarded the victims’ boats. According to Dropsite News, “The flotilla says at least 12 sexual assaults were documented aboard the vessel alone, including anal rape and forcible penetration with a handgun.”

The kidnapping victims were subjected to sadistic sexual abuse in the form of strip-searches accompanied by sexual taunting and groping. Many were raped. Participants described “rubber bullets fired at close range, tasers used on the face and upper body, stun grenades thrown into groups of detainees (and) prolonged stress positions under permanent bright light.” The activists were brutally beaten, emerging with “broken ribs (and) fractures to the torso, shoulders, and back.”

The kidnappers took their victims to the Israeli port of Ashdod for “further beatings, sexual humiliation, prolonged interrogations, and torture.” Israel responded to the media outcry and formal diplomatic protests from twelve governments, including Spain and Italy, by having extremist minister Itamar Ben-Gvir film himself participating in the abuse of the kidnapped civilians. After Ben-Gvir proudly posted his torture selfies on social media, even the US, UK, and Canada protested. Facing universal condemnation, the Israelis finally released their victims four days after the kidnapping, sending most of them on deportation flights to Turkey.

The kidnapped and tortured activists pointed out that the four days of hell they experienced were nothing compared to what Palestinian prisoners endure every single day. They called attention to the fact that Israel is currently imprisoning more than 400 Palestinian children, and that almost three-quarters of the children kidnapped by Israel report experiencing sexual violence or abuse.

Israel’s crimes against the flotilla activists were shocking but not surprising. Israel, after all, is a nation that trains dogs to rape prisoners, as reported by The New York Times. It is a nation with a “right to rape” movement that makes national heroes of prison guards who sodomize people to death. In his article “Israel Is the Global Rape Capital” Elias Akleh describes how “Sadistic sexual rape seems to be an endemic character of the whole Israeli society, making Israel the rape capital of the world, where sexual abuse and rape are not restricted against Palestinians only, but against Jewish Israeli girls in general.”

In 2011 psychologist Avigail Moor of Tel-Hai College conducted a scientific poll on whether it’s okay to rape your acquaintances. She found that 61% of Israeli men and 41% of women did not consider forced sex with an acquaintance to be rape.

All of this is just the proverbial tip of an iceberg of evidence that Israel is a nation of sadistic sex criminals. Depraved, violent, sadistic sexual abuse is even part of Israeli Orthodox Jewish religious rituals, as reported by the Jerusalem Post (6/3/2025). Social media is full of pictures posted by Israeli soldiers who murder Palestinian women, dress up in their victims’ bras and underwear, and take selfies.

In relatively normal societies, it is estimated that two per cent or less of the population consists of clinical psychopaths, while 98% are non-psychopathic. Among the Israeli Jewish population, it seems, that ratio is reversed. Polls show that the vast majority of Israeli Jews support the genocide of Gaza, which has featured the murders of tens of thousands of innocent women and children, most of whom have been slowly crushed to death beneath the rubble of their own houses.

None of these crimes could happen without the roughly ten trillion dollars of support Israel has received from American taxpayers. That money has been bestowed on the Dog Rape Nation by our politicians, who are bribed or blackmailed by Israeli agents like Jeffrey Epstein, himself a shining example of Jewish-Israeli sexual psychopathy.

Epstein described himself as “Donald (Trump’s) closest friend for ten years.” But it gets worse. In his 20s, Trump was the protegé of Jewish-Zionist gangster Roy Cohn, a sadistic homosexual pedophile who, according to journalist Anthony Summers, ran an Epstein-style blackmail operation that filmed powerful men, including J. Edgar Hoover, abusing little boys.

And it isn’t just Trump. Our whole political class is compromised. Just look at how they vote on Israel-related issues.

The USA desperately needs a serious, French Revolution style housecleaning.

For early access to articles like this and much more, you can subscribe to the print or digital editions of American Free Press.

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.,

My (b.1959) generation, the tail-end boomers giving way to GenX, took our boomer elders as guides.

I was about to write: “Big mistake.” But coincidentally, at the exact instant I put the period on this essay’s first sentence, the piped-in music here aboard the Rusadir, a cruise-ship-size ferry plying the Mediterranean between Malaga and Melilla, blasted the opening chords of the Who’s My Generation…which, of course, wasn’t my generation at all, but the boomers we emulated. I barely knew My Generation until Patti Smith covered it circa 1976.

Patti was my generation’s coolest rock star. I discovered her thanks to a Milwaukee “underground DJ” named Bob Reitman, who heard her in New York and rushed home to Milwaukee to share the news with the benighted Midwestern plebes. By the time Patti Smith revised My Generation for the punk era, The Who were dinosaurs. I’m not saying I didn’t love them—every kid loves dinosaurs. As a teenager I just about wore out Who’s Next on the turntable and Quadrophenia on my 1968 VW Beetle’s 8-track player. But Pete Townshend, Roger Daltrey, John Entwistle, and Keith Moon were already rich old boomers. Patti Smith was the harbinger of the DIY era. She was the first and only punk who doubled as a rock star, because punk rock killed the rock star, and Patti was there first and she didn’t get the news.

Anyway, we hip people born around 1960 looked up to guys like Bob Reitman, Milwaukee’s boomer rock n’ roll tastemeister, among other ostensibly wise elders. We thought the hippies knew where they were going. Silly us!

Hippies and their younger followers like me overused the Tom Wolfe line from The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test: “Are you on the bus or off the bus?” It was one of many pseudo-profundities tossed around by Ken Kesey and his followers, who painted an old school bus day-glo colors and drove around America taking and dispensing LSD. Being “on the bus” meant you deferred to the group mind in general and Ken Kesey in particular. In other words, you were hip. Being “off the bus” meant you must be having some sort of bad trip or something, or maybe you just weren’t cut out to be a Merry Prankster, meaning you were square, so maybe you should just disembark in Podunk, Iowa and apply for a job as a third shift under-assistant paper-shuffler in the local manure factory.

Naturally, everyone wanted to be “on the bus.” But as it turned out, disembarking in Podunk might not have been such a bad move. Kesey and the other hippie leaders never had the faintest idea where the bus was going. Everyone had vague visions of peace, love, and dope, spiced with artistic creativity and melded with long-term positive political change, whatever that meant. It was a great vibe while it lasted. But as Hunter S. Thompson noticed, the wave crested and broke in the desert somewhere east of Barstow and receded, leaving a whole lot of fear and loathing. When the Firesign Theater opined “I think we’re all bozos on this bus,” they were describing their whole Boomer generation.

The notion of “getting on the bus thinking it’s going in the right direction and getting a rude surprise” covers a lot of ground. All sentient MAGA people are feeling that way: They had thought Trump was driving the national bus away from ruinous Mideast-wars-for-Israel, and it turned out he was speeding straight toward the stupidest one of all, pedal-to-the-metal.

Bozo Boards Wrong Bus

I was thinking about “bozos getting on wrong buses” because it just happened to me in Malaga, Spain. I was trudging along the waterfront toward the ferry embarkation point, still a kilometer or two ahead, when I came to a bus stop just as the bus did. The hot sun, my heavy backpack, and a sore lower back that I had wrenched out of whack five days ago in Zagreb, all started screaming at me in unison: “Get on that bus! It’s maktoub!”

I obeyed; clearly “it was written.”

The bus continued east for awhile, crossed the river, then turned inland, away from the waterfront and the ferry terminal. I punched the “request stop” button. But the bus stayed in the left lane for many blocks, then turned west, opposite of the way I was going. By the time it finally deposited me somewhere on the Alameda Principal I was further from my destination than I had been when I’d boarded.

Had I been in a hurry I’d have been annoyed. Fortunately I had a couple of hours to kill before the ferry for Occupied Morocco left.

It turned out that the bus had dumped me right across from Librería Luces, a bookstore I had visited last summer. I remembered having asked whether they had any bilingual Spanish-English, Spanish-French, or Spanish-Arabic books—short stories preferred, though novels, poetry, history, or essays could work too. A nice señora had checked her computer and led me to a corner of the store where the very last bilingual literature book—an anthology of Spanish short stories with facing page English translations—was tucked away obscurely on the bottom shelf. I had bought and read it.

Now, a year later, randomly bus-dropped at that same bookstore, feeling a shiver of déjà vu, I entered and asked a different (I think) señora if there were any more bilingual books. She checked her computer and said no, the last one had sold out some time ago. That must have been the one I bought last summer.

As I was leaving the store, I glanced at the foreign languages section. Among the dozen or so French books one caught my eye. The spine read: Fictions Ficciones Jose Luis Borges. Sure enough, it was a bilingual French-Spanish edition of the story collection that made Borges’s reputation.

Borges-Induced Flashback

I used to own a bilingual copy of that book, except it was English-Spanish.* It was stolen in August 1990 when I left it on the beach in Manzanillo, Mexico, along with my wallet, passport, and plane ticket home, during a few minutes of ill-advised bodysurfing. (I seem to be an expert in ill-advised bodysurfing.)

The wallet and passport were stolen too. Actually, the whole backpack was stolen. I had no Borges to read on the bus, which was fine since I couldn’t ride the bus having no bus ticket or money for a replacement ticket, no plane ticket for when the bus got me to Puerto Vallarta, and no identification to facilitate solutions of those and other problems.

Early the next morning I explained my situation to a muy simpatico bus driver who let me ride for free. In Puerto Vallarta, I walked to the US consulate and somehow they came up with the paperwork to get me home without a plane ticket, ID, or money. They even lent me a few pesos for the city bus to the airport.

Unfortunately, at the airport I learned there was a roughly $20 ransom (“departure tax”) that you had to pay to get out of Mexico. I tried selling the handmade wool ponchos I had purchased in Patzcuaro, but nobody at the airport seemed to want a nice warm wool poncho, probably because it was miserably hot and humid. But some of my non-customers took pity on me and donated a few dollars here and there. I raised the $20 ransom before boarding closed.

I got home safely, and since 1991 I have been wandering the world looking for a replacement for that bilingual Borges book. Now I have finally found one, thanks to getting on the wrong bus.

The Merry Pranksters’ “on the bus or off the bus” mantra is actually almost profound, though Kesey may have been too stoned to appreciate his own wisdom. Social movements, like the hippies, MAGA, and so much more, are unpredictable bus rides. People clamber aboard in hopes of getting somewhere. The hippies were heading for a peaceful, loving, vividly-colored future. The MAGA people thought they were racing full-speed in reverse back towards American greatness. And the 9/11 truth movement, the only social movement bus I’ve ever really ridden, imagined that shocking people with red-pill truths could slap them awake and energize them to curb the worst excesses of their corrupt and murderous leadership.

None of these busses have gotten anywhere near their advertised destinations. The hippies mutated into yuppies driven by selfish materialistic hedonism. Their legacy is the breakdown of social institutions, starting with religion and family, leading to today’s ultra-corrupt nihilism presided over by the likes of the Trump and Biden crime families and their oligarch sponsors.

MAGA is Reagan 2.0: another wave of populist reaction against nihilistic boomer excesses. And once again, corrupt oligarchs are duping naive populists into voting for people, like Trump, who are even more corrupt and nihilistic than the liberal establishment they oppose.

As for the 9/11 truth bus, it has picked up other red-pilled passengers (Epstein truth, COVID freedom, JFK truth, ZioGenocide truth, JQ truth, and so on) and is still meandering around the backroads where mainstream traffic rarely circulates. Arguably it has made considerable progress on the road to eroding the epistemological authority of oligarch-owned mainstream media and allied institutions. But if there is a point where mainstream cognitive authority completely collapses, opening the way for radically different (i.e. non-nihilistic, anti-oligarchy) projects, we obviously aren’t there yet.

Will radical red-pilled dissidents ever seize power and make their views the new orthodoxy? It is difficult to imagine such things happening in the United States, absent some shocking turn of events that imposes severe economic hardship on the population—alongside equally severe reputational damage to the oligarchy and its political front-men.

If the US loses a war and suffers an economic collapse, and the loss and collapse are severe enough, those conditions might be met. It’s not inconceivable that Donald Trump, by blundering into a losing war on Iran that could trigger an economic collapse, may be creating the conditions that could produce revolutionary change.

Will the American oligarchy go the way of the French monarchy and nobility post-1789? Will the ideas of the red-pilled dissidents today, like those of the Enlightenment radicals of the 18^th century, help bring down our ancien régime? And if so, will the new dispensation turn out to be a significant improvement on the old one? Given the hideousness of our Epstein Oligarchy, whatever overthrows it couldn’t be much worse.

Unlike people like Ken Kesey and Donald Trump, I don’t have the self-hypnosis chops to confidently and charismatically claim that I know where the bus is going. For all I know it may wander in a Borgesian labyrinth before emerging into an alternate universe very different from anything I could have imagined, let alone predicted.

But wherever we end up, I have to admit it’s an interesting ride.

-

*Postscript: Google Gemini tells me that I cannot possibly have lost a bilingual English-Spanish edition of Ficciones in August, 1990 because:

“No standalone, full-length bilingual (Spanish-English) editions of Ficciones were officially published before 1991. The book first appeared in English as a full collection through Grove Press in 1962, but it was published in English only.”

An official, complete Spanish-English bilingual edition of Ficciones has never been published by a major commercial house like Grove Press or Penguin Books. [1]

Instead of full parallel-text volumes, publishers of Borges’ fiction have traditionally chosen to release his prose collections in distinct, language-specific editions. Readers looking for bilingual formats must look to alternative mediums:

French-Spanish Bilingual Edition (1994): The closest equivalent to a major, full-length bilingual volume of the text is the French-Spanish edition (Fictions : Ficciones), which was released on January 1, 1994, by the French publisher Editions Gallimard as part of their “Folio Bilingue” series. [1, 2]

But I distinctly remember practicing my Spanish with that bilingual English-Spanish Ficciones…I think. Or could I have been reading the Spanish original with the help of a pocket dictionary, which would have also been stolen? Or was I carrying two Borges books, the Spanish edition and the English Grove Press edition I vaguely remember once owning or reading? Since Google Gemini is owned by unreliable oligarchs, I will have to consult The Anglo-American Cyclopaedia, a literal but delinquent reprint of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, to find out whether that bilingual Spanish-English Ficciones ever really existed.

Crescent International

Most wars are in some sense wars of attrition. Both sides endure losses, get worn down, and reach the point that one of them loses the will or ability to keep fighting. The loser then accepts the winner’s terms. Alternately, both sides can grow exhausted and settle for less than victory.

Normally wars of attrition favor the side with greater power and resources. During World War II, for example, the Allies enjoyed a three-to-one advantage over the Axis powers in economic output and its key subcategory, munitions production.

Crucially, they controlled more than 90% of global oil supplies, while the Axis controlled only three percent. Under those circumstances, many historians argue, an Allied victory was nearly inevitable.

Today we are in the midst of a slow-burning World War III consisting of two (so far) sub-wars of attrition: The American Empire’s war on Russia through Ukraine, and its war on Iran. As in World War II, the American side enjoys seemingly insuperable advantages, including a $30 trillion to $2.5 trillion GDP advantage over Russia, and a $30 trillion to $0.5 trillion advantage over Iran.

The EU, still American vassals, offers another $20 trillion GDP at the service of the US. So in terms of nominal GDP the US-occupied west enjoys a nearly 20-to-1 advantage over Russia and a 100-to-1 advantage over Iran.

A naïve observer—and there are many of them in the west—might assume that the US will win World War III even faster and more easily than it won World War II.* But they would be wrong, for several reasons.

First, nominal GDP doesn’t reflect actual manufacturing power. China, the de facto ally of Russia and Iran, has far more manufacturing power than the US—perhaps more than the whole “collective west” combined. Second, the US has no clear strategy to maintain its empire, but flails counterproductively, nowhere more so than in its Israeli-instigated attack on Iran.

And finally and most importantly, Iran has leveraged its geographical and spiritual advantages and is threatening to expel the US from West Asia, despite its 100-to-1 underdog status in GDP and military spending. That expulsion will downgrade US domination of global energy resources, ultimately undoing Uncle Sam’s pretensions to global hegemony and empowering the multipolar coalition of Russia, China, and Iran.

How can a state outgunned 100-to-1 win a war of attrition? Iran is providing the answers, and they will be studied for centuries in future military academies.

The strategic lynchpin of Iran’s victory is its control over the Strait of Hormuz. About one fifth of global oil and gas, and one third of fertilizers, transit the strait. When the US and its Israeli masters attacked Iran on February 28, murdering leaders and schoolgirls alike, they provided Iran with a legitimate and urgent reason to assert control over the Strait and deny passage to adversaries.

Iran is currently attriting the US and its vassals, including the Europeans, Japanese, and South Koreans, by preventing them and their local collaborators from using the Strait. Traffic has plunged 95%, and Trump’s “blockade the blockade” self-owned has only worsened the crisis.

While Iranians, too, will suffer economic pain from the mutual war of attrition, they are in a position to outlast the US. Iranians, unlike Americans and Europeans, are used to being blockaded. They have the fortitude to endure hardships, and have developed workarounds.

What’s more, Iran doesn’t rely exclusively on the Strait of Hormuz. It borders 10 countries, including those reachable via the Caspian Sea, notably Russia. Iran has plenty of experience redirecting products to flow across those borders, often surreptitiously.

But how can Iran close the Strait when the more-powerful US wants it open? By developing asymmetric forces including tens of thousands of missiles, drones, and small speedboats, and hiding those forces deep underground, often under mountains, where the US cannot find or destroy them.

As of late May, American mainstream media have admitted that Iran still retains most of its pre-war missile and drone force, not to mention its speedboats, despite the huge US bombing campaign from February 28 through April 8. While Trump repeatedly made bombastic claims that he has “completely destroyed” or “virtually destroyed” Iran’s entire military, The New York Times reported on May 12 that more than 90% of Iran’s missile force remains intact. Other sources including Dr. Mohammad Marandi say that Iran has ramped up its manufacturing and currently has a bigger missile force than it did before the war.

Other Iranian military forces also remain strong; the New York Times cited a US military insider saying that Iran’s air defenses have actually improved since the war began. And even if all this were not the case, Iran only needs to send an occasional attack drone towards hostile shipping and the insurance companies will do the rest.

And if the US escalates again, Iran can encourage its Ansarallah allies to close the Bab al-Mendab gate to the Red Sea, effectively doubling the economic pain.

With its impregnable force of missiles, drones, and speedboats, Iran can not only close the Strait of Hormuz to hostile military and civilian craft, but also dominate the escalation ladder by threatening to destroy critical infrastructure in “Israel” and the US vassal Gulf states.

Whatever the US or Israelis hit in Iran, Tehran can hit its equivalent. This was demonstrated when, after Israel and the US bombed Iran’s South Pars gas field on March 18, Iran retaliated by striking US-occupied Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City, the largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) export complex in the world, wiping out a quarter of Qatar’s gas export capacity. Trump, cowed, backed off and ordered “Israel” to stop striking Iranian energy sites.

The US and “Israel,” frustrated by their inability to de-fang the Iranian military lion, turned to attacking civilian targets, including schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, bridges, mosques, and even a synagogue, before finally giving up and accepting the uneasy ceasefire.

Iranians, outraged by these pointless massacres, and by the dastardly murder of their leaders under cover of negotiations, have been rallying every night in huge numbers in public squares, calling on their government and military to continue fighting until victory.

So neither Iran’s military power, nor its fighting spirit, has been attrited. On the contrary, the Islamic Republic is much stronger in late May than it was at the end of February when the war began.

Unlike Iran, the US and Israel are suffering massive attrition on both the logistical and psychological fronts. Logistically, the US has used up between half and three-quarters of its Patriot and THAAD interceptors, one third of its Tomahawk missiles, and one-third to half of its long-range stealth cruise missiles, Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM), ATACMS, and long-range stealth cruise missiles.

Most outrageously, the US used more than half of its entire THAAD inventory to defend “Israel”. That was far more firepower than Israel used to defend itself. It was also vastly more than the US used to defend its Arabian vassals.

If the US ever feels the need to go to war to protect its own strategic interests rather than the zionist entity’s, it had better not happen during the next several years, because the weapons inventories just aren’t there and can’t be quickly replaced. The overall cost of all of these wasted weapons has been estimated at around $2.5 billion, which is vastly more than what Iran spends on its more frugal and effective missile, drone, and speedboat force.

America’s will to fight has also been grossly attrited, whereas Iran’s has not. The war on Iran was never popular in the US. Trump’s advisors, American military leaders, many politicians, and the general public were never enthusiastic. But the situation is reaching critical levels. According to pollster Nate Silver:

“Immediately after the Iran War began, about 48 percent of Americans opposed the conflict…That was already unpopular relative to past wars, but things have only gotten worse. Nearly 60 percent of Americans oppose the war today. In fact, I had to extend the y-axis of our polling average upward to accommodate the increasing unpopularity of the conflict.”

Other polls are even worse for the Trump regime. According to Ipsos, “71% of Americans think their country should not be involved in the Iran war and this rises to 79% for those aged 18-34.”

And this cascade of unpopularity has happened before the supply chain disruption that is coming this summer, no matter what happens in the Strait of Hormuz. As the economic shocks intensify and reverberate, Americans’ unprecedented levels of antiwar sentiment, already off the charts, could contribute to revolt in the streets or within the military. At a minimum, it will lead to catastrophe for Trump’s Republican allies in the November elections, and potential impeachment proceedings.

The longer the war goes on, the more the American side suffers—or more accurately, reaches and exceeds its tolerance for suffering—as opposed to the Iranian side. Every additional day, week, and month of continued conflict, or even continued reductions in traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, squeezes the US more than it squeezes the Iranians.

Iran has shown the world how an underdog can wage a successful war of attrition against a far more powerful foe. And the key to Iran’s success is not just its prowess at strategizing and waging asymmetrical warfare, aided by geography. Its spiritual tradition, rooted in the Qur’an and Islamic history, requires and honors resistance against oppression (zulm) and aggression (‘udwan). In any war of attrition, the side with faith and righteousness enjoys an advantage over those who know, deep down inside, that they are fighting for an unjust cause. And the United States under the Trump regime has made itself a shameless exemplar of aggression and injustice, while Iran has taken care to ensure that its responses are defensive, rational, and proportionate.

Iranian communicators have effectively conveyed their dedication to “sacred defense,” as the @ExplosiveMedia Lego video makers call it, reaching out to the global public with far more effective messaging than their American counterparts. 80% of the global public now blames the war on the US and Israel, according to a recent Gallup poll. Despite the fact that American zionist Jews dominate global media, and outspend Iranian communicators by a huge margin, Iran has managed to more than hold its own in the battle for public opinion.

Iran has stunned the world by standing strong while exhausting the zionist-occupied USA’s military, economic, psychological, and spiritual resources. Tehran is writing a textbook on asymmetrical warfare, knocking a world hegemon off its perch, and setting a legendary example of resistance to injustice.

—-

*In a sense Russia “won” World War II since it did most of the fighting, but the US emerged from the war as the world’s number one power.

False Flag Weekly News has been canceled this week. Conspiracy theorists offer conflicting hypotheses.

*”Conspiracy Realists” say it’s because Kevin is traveling.

*”Antisemitic Conspiracy Theorists” say it’s because the ADL has deplatformed FFWN from the entire galaxy.

*”No Funders” insist that the two planeloads full of cash that were supposed to crash into the two most recent shows did not impact with sufficient force to cause the shows to magically materialize from the aether at free-fall acceleration.

We can test which hypothesis is correct by sending Kevin money to buy cat food for Muse when he returns home.

Here are the two Fundrazrs that did not reach their goals:

https://fundrazr.com/roundtable-discussion

https://fundrazr.com/israel-wins-pyrrhic-victory

PS Here is some evidence supporting the “conspiracy realist” position:

The German word for “henpecked husband” is Der Pantoffelheld, which literally means “slipper hero.” Such a man is living “under his wife’s slipper.” It apparently derives from the older German idiom unter dem Pantoffel stehen (“to stand under the slipper”), i.e. “to be under someone’s thumb.”

When Germans talk about Der Pantoffelheld they don’t mean that the guy is being beaten by the slipper or having it thrown at him. He’s just tame, domesticated, dominated by his wife, who is the ruler of the domestic sphere where slippers are worn. If we want to entertain the extreme situation of “beaten by footwear” we need to travel south, across the Mediterranean to the Arab world, where having slippers or shoes thrown at you means that the person doing the throwing not only hates you, but feels great contempt for you as well.

The image of Der Pantoffelheld came to mind yesterday as I was wandering around Valletta, Malta and came upon the following plaque:

As I pondered that plaque, arrested by the last line “ALL REMAIN FREE” (engraved in a larger font just in case there was anybody out there who dared to disagree) it occurred to me that everywhere I go in Europe I keep running into constant reminders that the Germans were the bad guys in World War II. If I were German—and in fact I am one-quarter German genetically—I would feel like I was stuck with a shrewish Jewish wife following me around beating the hell out of me with a slipper.

My trip around the Western Mediterranean began in Barcelona, where my ride cut through Montjuic, “Jew Mountain,” to avoid traffic and get me from the airport to the Ciutat Vella (old city). Naturally there is a Holocaust memorial in Montjuic. It wouldn’t be much of a Jew Mountain if there weren’t, now, would it?

Barcelona is full of reminders that the antifascists were the good guys. It was the headquarters of the left-wing, Jewish-supported opposition to Franco, the traditionalist Catholics. Besides the Holocaust memorials mentioned in the above caption, Barcelona also hosts a special persecution-centric Jewish branch of the Barcelona History Museum, and a Catalonia Democracy Memorial with plenty of Holocaust and antisemitism related material reminding us that the Jews are basically the deities of the struggle for freedom and democracy, with the Germans permanently cast as villains.

To their credit, the left-wing Spaniards—I’m sorry, Catalans—have noticed that the Jewish dog-raping genocide perps are definitely not the heroes of the drama currently unfolding in Occupied Palestine. And the more they notice, the more the local Jewish tribalists shriek that we need to build more Holocaust memorials to combat the rising tide of antisemitic noticing.

From Barcelona I flew to Milan, Italy, where I caught the Metafisica/Metafisiche exhibit at the Palazzo Reale centering on my favorite 20th century painter, Giorgio de Chirico, who brilliantly hinted at the indelible presence of the sacred lurking beneath the tawdry surface of profane modernity. De Chirico isn’t at the forefront of 20th century artist names known to the general public, perhaps because he wasn’t a worshipper at the altar of “Jewish freedom and democracy” (bonus points for LBGTQ progressivism). If you run his name through search engines and ask about out his politics you’ll find that:

“Living through the rise of totalitarianism in Europe, his primary allegiance was always to his own artistic survival rather than a political ideology.”

“The political left and the avant-garde viewed his later obsession with the Old Masters and classicism as politically suspect and reactionary—carrying the ‘taint of Fascism.’”

“After living as part of the avant-garde in Paris, he returned to Italy and went as far as sending a personal letter to Benito Mussolini to swear his nationalist bona fides.”

The de Chirico exhibit features a section devoted to Mussolini’s appropriation of the painter’s “big open plazas with neoclassical architecture” motif— but in a heroic rather than mystical vein. “Mussolini's chief architect, Marcello Piacentini, and various Rationalist architects adapted the visual language of De Chirico’s canvas landscapes—such as Piazza d'Italia—and erected them in real life.”

The Milan de Chirico exhibit’s obligatory anti-fascist slipper-beating is mercifully soft and subtle compared to what it would have to be in a place like Paris or, God forbid, Berlin. Perhaps that is because Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, despite her disavowals, is spearheading a political project that some find redolent with fascist nostalgia.

From Milan I traveled to Croatia to spend some time with E. Michael Jones, who was on a lecture tour. Croatians are interested in Dr. Jones’ views of history in general and the so-called Jewish Question in particular, in part because Croatia emerged from World War II feeling ambivalent and confused…and the ambivalence and confusion have persisted. Whereas Spain and Italy have adopted the majority EU position—total submission to victors’ history—Croatia has never quite known what to think. Though the communist Tito, who ruled Yugoslavia (including the present nation of Croatia) from the end of World War II until his death in 1980, enforced a hard-edged version of obligatory antifascism, not all Croatians fully accepted that narrative.

Zagreb was one of the few European capitals without a Holocaust memorial until the Jews basically pummeled Croatian leaders with slippers and forced them to build one in 2019. Many Croatians resent the bullying, especially since the Jews are not satisfied with the Croatian Holocaust Memorial because it is not masochistic enough.

After visiting Spain, Italy, and Croatia—three nations whose World War II histories were less than stellar according to the received narratives of the victors—I arrived in plucky little Malta, which figures heroically in two of the great military legends of so-called Western civilization: the defeat of the Ottoman Turks, which saved Europe from the scary-scary Muslims, and the defeat of the at least equally scary-scary Nazis four centuries later. (Funny how the bad guys, in both cases, are people the Jews don’t like.)

The legendary victories I’m referring to, for you non-history-majors, are the Great Siege of Malta of 1565, when the Knights of Malta defeated the Ottomans, and the Siege of Malta of 1940-1942, when the British held off the Italians and Germans. The legends of both sieges invoke heroic endurance of great suffering and the overcoming of tremendous odds in victories that changed the course of history, robbing the bad guys (Muslims/Germans) of the world domination they would have achieved had the respective battles on Malta gone the other way. To hear the victors tell it, Malta has saved the free world twice!

Those who claim that Malta stopped the Muslims from ruling the world point out that had the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, with his Corsair Dragut and the Ottoman admiral Sinan Pasha, managed to take Malta, they would have been a mere stone’s throw away from Italy. By seizing the crossroads between the eastern and western Mediterranean, which is also a crossroads between Europe and North Africa, they might have eventually conquered Europe and (ostensibly) the world. But though the Ottoman attack on Malta outnumbered the Knights of St. John by roughly 40,000 to 6,000, the defenders, through a combination of wiliness, endurance, sheer luck, and expertly-constructed fortifications, saved the world for Christendom, or Jewry, or whoever it was they saved it for.

Today, many historians argue that the legend of the Great Siege is exaggerated, and that the Ottoman historiographers, who saw it as, if not a mere footnote, merely a single episode among many, with no overriding significance in the larger Ottoman-vs.-Hapsburgs struggle, are probably closer to the mark.

Likewise, Malta’s significance in World War II has no doubt been exaggerated. The war on Hitler’s Germany was primarily waged by Stalin’s Russia, while the Mediterranean was, in the larger picture, mostly just a sideshow. But the suffering on Malta was very real. It wasn’t just the Auberge de France that fell under German and Italian bombs. Almost two-thirds of Valletta’s buildings were badly damaged or destroyed, and more than 9,000 Maltese, out of a population of less than 300,000, were killed.

What’s more, the defenders of Malta can be credibly cast as underdogs. Though the Axis powers were the underdogs of the larger war, with only one-third the GDP of the Allies, in the case of Malta the roles were reversed. The issue was not GDP but geography: Malta was surrounded by Axis forces, not just by the Italians only sixty miles to the north, but also Rommel’s forces in North Africa 200 miles south. So like Jean de Valette’s grueling 1565 struggle against the Ottomans, the British fight for Malta during World War II is an easy story to frame as a heroic triumph against difficult odds.

So I suppose the Maltese can be forgiven for beating the Germans with their slippers and reminding them that Axis bombers destroyed much of historic Valletta and other cultural sites in Malta. But what the Germans did to Valletta was tame compared to what the Allies did to Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo with firebombing, and to Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons. What’s more, in terms of outlandish cruelty, what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians today is vastly worse than what the Germans did to Jews, gypsies, and communists. The Israelis train dogs to rape prisoners. They make national heroes of guards who sodomize prisoners to death. They rape and torture humanitarian activists. They shoot babies for sport, and award extra “one shot two kills” points for shooting pregnant women to death.

The stories of extreme German cruelty towards Jews, by contrast, appear to be mostly Jewish tall tales. They can be found in Holocaust fiction, both the kind that is openly marketed as fiction and the kind that isn’t. They apparently were also a staple of the Jewish-made “Nazi porn” that was so popular in Israel during the two decades after World War II. It seems that Jews have a peculiar sadomasochistic genius for “crying out” (in ecstasy as well as pain) about hideous pornographic atrocities that they pretend to have suffered, while “striking you” with exactly those same atrocities and then some.

As I write this in late May 2026, the slipper-beaten Germans are giving the sadistic Jewish hausfraus a run for their money in terms of which group is going to start World War III. Will it be the Jews using nuclear weapons against Iran that sets off global armageddon? Or will the henpecked Germans take out their frustrations on Russia, as the Jewish hausfrau is screaming at them to do while she beats them with a slipper?

By Kevin Barrett, for American Free Press

According to Jewish mythology, Jews are the most persecuted people on Earth. Rabbis and Jewish historiographers alike speak of unending waves of expulsions, pogroms, and genocides afflicting God’s self-styled chosen people in virtually every part of the world they have lived, and perhaps even a few where they haven’t. As Congressman Randy Fine endlessly repeats, “Jews have been kicked out of every country where we’ve ever lived, and it’s never been our own fault.”

Given their literally unbelievable history of gratuitous persecution, and their claims that horrific anti-Jewish acts are happening with increasing frequency around the world and in the United States, I expected to be stunned and horrified by the Anti-Defamation League’s list of 6,274 antisemitic incidents of 2025. But when I finally summoned up the courage to examine their terrifying list of outrages, I was indeed shocked—not by the horror of thousands of disgusting and depraved crimes against poor innocent Jews, but by the mind-bending banality of the vast majority of alleged “antisemitic incidents.”

What’s more, it seems that the few genuinely serious “incidents” were not even antisemitic. For example, on New Year’s Day of 2025, 17 out of the 18 reported “antisemitic incidents” were nothingburgers—but one was truly horrific: An mentally unstable Black American veteran drove his pickup truck onto a crowded sidewalk in New Orleans, fired shots, and wound up killing fourteen people before being shot dead by police.

But there is no evidence that anti-Jewish prejudice played any role in the crime. The perpetrator never seems to have said anything about Jews. None of the victims were Jewish, but instead were Blacks, Whites, British, Muslim, or Hispanic. The killer “discussed the Islamic State (IS), his divorce and a desire to kill his family in videos he recorded while driving from Texas to New Orleans.” (Note that “Islamic State” is a false flag group of Israeli-American mercenaries posing as radical Muslims, which together with Al-Qaeda currently rules Syria after overthrowing that country’s legitimate government on behalf of Israel and the United States.)

The non-antisemitic truck attack is an anomaly. Almost all the “antisemitic incidents” on the ADL list are trifling, and hundreds if not thousands involve peaceful protests and political organizing.

One of the first “antisemitic incidents” of 2025 happened in America’s unofficial Jewish capital, Manhattan, New York City: “At an anti-Israel rally organized by groups including PAL-Awda, the Palestinian Youth Movement, the Party for Socialism and Liberation and Jewish Voice for Peace, protesters displayed signs with messages that included: ‘Smash Zionism and Imperialism Through Workers Revolution!’ and ‘Zionism is Cancer.’” Ouch! Though not exactly six million dead in gas chambers, protests against Zionism can undoubtedly hurt Jewish feelings. That must be why the ADL categorized this one as “Antisemitic Incident: Harassment.”

Jew-hatred at anti-genocide protests is apparently becoming a real problem. The ADL tells us that the very next day, “At an anti-Israel rally organized by South Jersey for Gaza, a protester held a sign that read: ‘No to Zionist Racism.’” So opposing racism is antisemitic! The next day: “At an anti-Israel rally…protesters chanted, ‘Long Live the Intifada.’” On January 9th, “Protesters associated with MLA Members for Justice in Palestine disrupted a conference, chanting, ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,’ a slogan commonly used to call for an end to the Jewish state.”

Shockingly unshocking “antisemitic incidents” were perpetrated by right-wingers as well as leftists. On January 2, 2025, the ADL tells us, a terrible antisemitic incident occurred in Greensboro, North Carolina: “Approximately eight individuals associated with Patriot Front, a white supremacist group, held a meetup and training event.”

When every left-wing protest or right-wing meetup is categorized as an “antisemitic incident,” it’s easy to see how the ADL could generate a total of over 6,000 such incidents annually. In fact, it’s deeply disappointing that there were not vastly more such “incidents.”

There should have been 60,000 or better yet 600,000 or maybe even six million incidents of anti-Israel protests and meet-ups! After all, American taxpayers have been funding a slow-motion genocide in Palestine since 1948, and an accelerated genocide since 2023. We are paying Israel to blow up apartment blocks full of children and force the few survivors to dig through rubble with their bare hands to recover the dead. We are paying Israel to commit systematic torture, including training dogs to rape prisoners, as The New York Times recently discovered.

In total, we have spent somewhere in the neighborhood of ten trillion dollars on Israel. The vast majority of that sum, roughly eight trillion dollars, has gone for wars against Israel’s enemies, including Trump’s disastrous war on Iran. If people who protest these outrages are “antisemitic,” it is deeply disappointing that there is so little “antisemitism.”

For early access to articles like this and much more, you can subscribe to the print or digital editions of American Free Press.

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 False Flag Weekly News link

Israel just prevailed in its scorched earth campaign against the USA in general, and the state of Kentucky in particular, by “primarying” Rep. Thomas Massie. Since they couldn’t Epstein him, the Kosher Nostra used AI to generate a suggestive clip of Massie having a “threesome” affair with Democrats Ilhan Omar and AOC. Welcome to the AI era! Who needs Epstein and his gaggle of teenage sex slave shiksas when you’ve got AI? From now on, Israel will just create fake videos of imaginary misbehavior on the part of anyone who doesn’t follow their orders.

But how long will that strategy work? Fox News addicted boomers who can’t tell AI from reality, and who love the “Israel” they learned about from Leon Uris, are dying off. Younger Americans are increasingly disgusted by Zionist Jew lies, Zionist Jew depravity, and Zionist Jew genocide. Massie won more than 80% of the Gen Z (under 30) vote. He won the 26 to 35s 72%-16%. He won Gen X (ages 36-64) by a greater than 6% margin. Unfortunately for Massie and America, the MOFs (moronic old farts) turned out in great numbers, and two-thirds of their votes went to Massie’s Israel-owned opponent, Ed Gallrein.

Or did they? The senior (Israeli) citizen voters were responsible for practically all of the mail-in ballots, and the vast majority went to Gallrein. In an interesting coincidence, Gallrein’s total mail-in haul of 10,854 votes perfectly covered his margin of victory of 10,283 votes. Were all ten thousand plus of those Zio-ballots actually filled out and mailed by old fogies who were compos mentis? The 2020 election, Trump’s supporters never tired of telling us, was stolen by Democrats who made sure that entire senior centers full of zombies voted unanimously for Biden. Trump himself calls mail-in ballots “election fraud” and “cheating” and has been trying to ban mail-in voting, but hasn’t succeeded so far since the Constitution deems that states run elections and the details are handled by local administration.

But for some reason Trump hasn’t been protesting Gallrein’s victory and demanding a thorough inspection of all those mail-in ballots to see whether they were postmarked in Tel Aviv. That’s probably because Trump has never had a job in his life except money launderer and front man for the Kosher Nostra.

Though Israel got away with primarying Massie, like it primaried Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman and a long list of people before that, it likely won a pyrrhic victory. By exposing Israel’s control of the US Congress in an unprecedented way, and outraging the majority of non-retirement-age people nationwide, the Zionists are wasting what’s left of their soft power—their appeal to hearts and minds.

AIPAC’s Massie takedown happened in the wake of two of Israel’s worst-ever PR disasters: The New York Times’ exposure of Israel’s unbelievably disgusting torture of Palestinian prisoners, including training dogs to commit rape, was quickly followed by Ben Gvir sharing a video of himself joining Israeli guards in abusing the humanitarian activists who were attacked and kidnapped a thousand kilometers from Israeli shores and taken to Israel for brutalization.

With all of this self-inflicted PR damage, Israel is sacrificing any potential it may have had for a long-term future in favor of minor, short-term gains. As it wins at the tactical level, by successfully kidnapping and abusing activists, kidnapping and dog-raping Palestinians, or getting honest politicians thrown out of the US Congress, it loses bigly strategically.

That’s also true of the Israel-driven war on Iran. As neocon superstar Robert Kagan has been grumpily observing, the vicious attack on Iran February 28th basically forced the Iranians to permanently seize the Strait of Hormuz, thereby raising Iran’s status as a regional power by several notches. While the sneak attack succeeded tactically by mass-murdering Iranian leaders and schoolgirls alike, it will go down in history as one of the most colossal strategic failures ever recorded. (If Israel thought Iran pre-Hormuz was an existential threat, just wait till you see what’s coming.)

Tactical success creating strategic failure seems an Israeli speciality. That’s basically the thesis of Ronan Bergman’s Rise and Kill First, which chronicles Israel’s grotesque history of political assassinations (while leaving out the biggest ones, including the Kennedys). Bergman notes that Israel has grown increasingly proficient at murdering its leading opponents, but that every time it murders a Resistance leader, new Resistance leaders arise in his place to present even greater threats. That is certainly what happened when the Zionists wiped out a major segment of Iran’s leadership February 28, uniting the country behind equally-capable leaders who are even more hardline than the martyred ones.

Why do the Zionists keep shooting themselves in the foot by shooting people they would be well advised not to shoot? Why do they brag about dog rape and abuse of humanitarian activists, when strategically it would make more sense to respect basic decency and international law? Why do they make a pushy, obnoxious spectacle of themselves sacrificing Thomas Massie, whose influence could have been dealt with more subtly and effectively through low-key, rational politicking? And above all, why do they keep behaving in ways that increase the determination of their Middle Eastern neighbors, and an ever-greater segment of the world’s population, to be done with them, when they could easily accept the international consensus of Oslo, Camp David, and so on, and assure themselves of a decent future?

E. Michael Jones, who is leading a conference I’m attending here in Croatia, says “the Jews are the enemies of Logos.” By Logos he means something like “the God-given rationality, order, and beauty infusing creation.” Dr. Jones argues that the Jews, in rejecting Jesus Christ, rejected Logos, and have been at war with it ever since. That is why they are infused with a spirit of hatred and ugliness and grotesquely aggressive behavior that turns out to be self-destructive.

Dr. Jones makes a pretty good argument for that thesis. But Zionist Jews themselves, with their outrages against decency and morality and reason, are making an even better one.

Podcast link

In this episode of El Niño Speaks, José Niño sits down with Dr. Kevin Barrett to discuss the real driving forces behind U.S. foreign policy.

Barrett moves past the superficial narratives of partisan politics to uncover the deeper history of the “Kosher Nostra”—the nexus of Jewish organized crime, intelligence-backed false flags, and the manufacturing of the Trump persona.

He dissects how the “Shaytan Accords” (Abraham Accords) were used to force Gulf Arab vassals into submission, how the Zionist network functions from Argentina to the Middle East, and why the “anti-war” movement has been systemically lobotomized by liberal NGO capture and state-level repression.

Follow Dr. Kevin Barrett’s work:

Substack: kevinbarrett.substack.com

Twitter: @truthjihad

Unz Review: Kevin Barrett at Unz.com

Website: TruthJihad.com

Rumble link Bitchute link

The series of chemical weapons hoaxes—false flag incidents that helped NATO and Israel overthrow the Syrian government and install their current ISIS/Al-Qaeda puppets—are unraveling. Today Dr. Piers Robinson joins us to discuss this issue by way of his recent article “Dr. Brendan Whelan's ILOAT Win Reveals Clear Evidence of OPCW Corruption.”

Transcript

Kevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audio-Visual. I’m Kevin Barrett, doing this podcast since 2006. I try to bring on the most interesting writers and translate them into audiovisual. One of the best writers right now is Piers Robinson. He’s a fellow refugee from the controlled academy. We’re not so controlled now (that we’ve left).

Piers has done great work on a number of issues. We recently did a podcast on his work on the 9/11 planes. And now we’re going to revisit another of these big deceptions and scandals: the Syria chemical weapons thing. It’s hard to say whether it even was a thing. So let’s find out. Hey, welcome, Piers Robinson. How are you?

Piers Robinson: Good to see you, Kevin. I’m doing well, thanks.

Kevin Barrett: Good to have you back. So these chemical weapons accusations against Syria during the war that finally brought down the Syrian government a couple of years ago always had the stench of dubiousness about them, to say the least. But it was kind of hard to nail it down and prove exactly what was going on. It was complicated, right? Lots of alleged attacks going both ways.

Piers Robinson: You are correct. There was one in Homs in 2012 in December which was a staged event and they tried to spin it off as a sarin or a nerve agent attack. But very quickly the wheels came off that and I think even the US State Department backed away from the claims being made. But that was one of the very earliest incarnations of what I describe as essentially false flags, staged events.

Kevin Barrett: Bush had joked about Iraqi WMD and pretended to be looking for them under his desk. It turned out to be a complete hoax, and yet they rolled out the same thing for Syria. How do they get away with that?

Piers Robinson: Well, that’s the incredible thing about it. Syria was one of the 9/11 wars. It was planned (by the neocons): Wesley Clark famously blurted out about the seven countries in five years, and Syria was one of them. So it was always one of the countries which they were going to use the 9/11 false flag in order to get a war going. And of course with Syria it didn’t really get going until 2011 when you had various covert operations and also multiple external actors fueling dissent within the country and then really pretty much almost immediately triggering unrest.

Well, of course, there were no weapons of mass destruction there. But in the UK you had Dr. David Kelly, Britain’s top biological weapons expert, who had a rather candid conversation with the BBC and said that the British government had sexed up the intelligence on Iraqi WMD.

At the same time, you had Ambassador Wilson in the US, who had been sent to Niger to investigate the yellowcake uranium claims, and he said pretty much the same thing. On both sides of the Atlantic you had very high, very significant officials basically saying that there was no WMD in Iraq because they were manipulating the intelligence.

A lot of people became aware of that in the fullness of time. Then came Syria. It’s quite remarkable that one of the decisions they made — and I suspect some of this was to do with Israeli involvement, but a lot of it was actually rooted in UK Foreign Office planning — was to build a narrative around demonizing the Syrian government and Assad using the same set of allegations, this idea that there are chemical and biological weapons.

Of course, in the case of Syria, the allegation was that Assad was using these weapons. In a way, it’s surprising that they embarked upon the same kind of deception again, but then perhaps not so surprising because it did work the first time.

Kevin Barrett: Right, but people woke up to it, supposedly.

Piers Robinson: People woke up to it, but they got the job done. But then that’s quite a long time to 2011. And I think you had the whole Arab Spring narrative building up around 2011. And I think it was easy for what was happening in Syria to get folded into that.

There was a build-up to this, because prior to this there was an interesting series of alleged chemical weapons attacks. It actually started in March 2013 when there was actually an attack on Syrian army soldiers using a nerve agent. And the Syrian government went straight to the United Nations and said, “We want an investigation. Some of our soldiers have been killed and we believe it’s a nerve agent.”

Almost as soon as the Syrian government had done that, you then had these counter accusations coming in from Britain, France, Qatar and the US alleging that the Syrian government was using chemical weapons.

You had the emergence of what I understand now as essentially staged events. This is where you started to have the involvement of, for example, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former British military officer who’d set up a company called SecureBio. As we know now, he was part of an MI6 sample-gathering operation in 2013.

So you had this kind of interesting build-up to Ghouta 2013, all set around this invitation or request from the Syrian government: come in, send in the UN, send in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and get this investigated.

Then all of these other allegations suddenly started being thrown out by the Americans and the Brits and these kinds of events occurring in Syria.

When the joint OPCW-UN team arrived in Damascus in August 2013 to begin their investigations, at exactly that point there was a mass rocket-launch sarin attack in the suburbs of Damascus in Ghouta.

So this is what we’re being asked to believe in terms of this narrative building: that the Syrian government legitimately requested the UN OPCW to come in, the inspectors get into the capital and then within a week or so you have this mass sarin rocket attack in Ghouta with a large casualty count.

The details of this are a little bit more complicated than that. I know some researchers argue that actually not that many people were killed by sarin and a lot of these people were probably massacred.

I think there are elements in the US who were part of this red-line creation. I think it was pushed by external actors in Israel as well. Obama famously backed away from it. He was given information from Clapper that this was not a slam dunk.

They backed away. Russia, of course, defused the situation by persuading Assad to hand over Syria’s strategic chemical weapons stocks, which Syria always had essentially as a deterrent against Israel’s nuclear capability.

But Assad said, “Okay, we’ll go along with this. We will sign up to the Chemical Weapons Convention and we will dispose of all of our weapons.” These were all put onto Cape Ray, an American warship, and then destroyed.

That was the point at which the red line didn’t quite work for those wanting the full-scale intervention, but it did, I think from Israel’s point of view, get to this point of the disarmament of Assad.

Kevin Barrett: For sure.

Piers Robinson: I think with hindsight, knowing what we know now, it was a mistake. And it was also clearly a mistake because this didn’t bring an end to it.

Within a year of Syria having acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention and getting rid of its sarin stocks, you then had the sudden emergence of chlorine allegations.

Chlorine historically as a battlefield munition was used by the Germans in the First World War. You need huge quantities of the material. You’re talking with these alleged tactics of chlorine cylinders dropped, they burst and chlorine would pour out.

Kevin Barrett: Like somebody was getting in by the roof with a bottle of bleach from their laundry and kind of dropping the bleach bottle.

Piers Robinson: Yeah, but this worked and these alleged attacks started to occur. Then the allegations started to be delivered from the usual suspects: Assad has now started to use chlorine weapons against his own population.

The British government was very much involved in this. The Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence were involved in the sense that they had the White Helmets set up, as some of your listeners are probably aware. They had various other outsourced operations in Syria.

The important point is around 2014 where the OPCW got drawn back into investigation of these attacks. What happened was that they set up an ad hoc body called the Fact Finding Mission, the FFM missions. These were there to deploy into the country.

They were told that they had clearance to go in, so they went into opposition-held territory. But just as they crossed the line outside Syrian government-controlled territory where they had been safe, their convoy was ambushed.

Two of the OPCW teams were held hostage for about 24 hours. They hit an IED. There’s a picture of their UN car severely damaged.

At that point — and you can probably start to guess what might have been the rationale for opposition groups attacking the OPCW convoy — the OPCW decided they couldn’t safely send teams into those territories.

So you had this setup where you had the OPCW with this ad hoc Fact Finding Mission set up to go into Syria, but then not being able to get in on the ground and relying upon information being supplied by groups aligned with belligerents in the country.

In the case of the White Helmets, these were groups aligned with opposition forces.

This went on for several years. I’ve gone through a lot of these. I’m working on a book on it at the moment. I’ve done a series for UK Column.

Some of these allegations were transparently false, and yet they got reported on by the OPCW Fact Finding Mission and ultimately started to build this alleged body of evidence: here we’ve got another investigation, another chemical attack, not confirmed, but reasonable grounds to suspect this is going on.

There was this period between 2014 and 2016 where what you had were essentially fairly crudely staged false flags or staged events.

Some of the claims being made are laughable. In one instance, one of the early instances where the Fact Finding Mission gathered evidence from information supplied to them, there was a crater on the ground surrounded by dead animals. This is where one chlorine cylinder was supposed to have impacted and created the huge crater.

Ninety metres away there was another yellow cylinder on a kitchen, which was claimed to have occurred at the same time.

It was reported at the time by the White Helmets and the usual suspects promoting it over social media.

So you had almost comical but ultimately effective operations because the OPCW Fact Finding Missions were very much, I would argue, co-opted by the intelligence services, certainly of Britain and other Western powers.

They were basically serving up what the US wanted, what the British government wanted, what the French wanted and what the Israelis wanted.

Even when you had these implausible scenarios being presented, more occurred throughout 2015 and 2016.

There was a bizarre idea that chlorine was being generated in tiny quantities through improvised devices.

As some people pointed out at the time, this was absurd. One person I know connected to the OPCW said, “Well, that will create enough chlorine to kill maybe a field mouse. Why not just drop a cylinder of chlorine?”

But it helped create this impression of dastardly weapons being created by the Syrian government. That ended up in an OPCW report.

Again, the same setup. By this point the White Helmets were very much in the driving seat of these chemical attacks. They turn up, they feed the information back, and they became key sources of information going back to the Fact Finding Missions.

This was facilitated by James Le Mesurier, the former British military guy who was having direct contact with the OPCW inspectors. So you can see the dangers of the corruption of the process there.

That rumbled on until 2017. In a way this helped maintain the backdrop narrative of the Syrian government systematically using chemical weapons.

But it wasn’t necessarily having the splash they wanted. So this is where they moved to: okay, we need to bring sarin back into play here, even though the Syrian government has given up its sarin stocks.

We were trying to hold this line that Assad was just using chlorine gas cylinders. Now that doesn’t really kill a large number of people. It’s not a particularly dangerous weapon to be using in that way.

So then you had the Khan Shaykhun sarin attack, which the Trump administration bombed Syria over a week later.

The White Helmets were heavily involved in that. Ted Postol, the American MIT ballistics and weapons expert, argued that this was a staged or false-flag event in order to try and get the Trump administration to carry out a bombing.

Khan Shaykhun killed a significant number of people. I think about 40 people were killed in this sarin attack.

I know people who’ve looked at it closely and said this is clearly a staged event. People are killed, but it’s a false-flag event which has occurred.

This was around the point where I started, as an academic, to look at this issue.

Then came Douma in 2018. About 43 civilians were killed. Again America, Britain and France bombed in retaliation, so it was very big news.

It was initially presented as a sarin attack. These people were filmed in an apartment block with foam in their mouth and so on. It was argued at least initially by the US that this was a nerve-agent attack.

The OPCW FFM team got into Syria. Just as the Douma alleged attack occurred, the area fell to Syrian and Russian forces. So for the first time the OPCW were actually able to get in on the ground and investigate themselves.

All of those previous alleged attacks had relied upon the White Helmets. Now suddenly, because the Syrian government had secured the area almost immediately after the alleged attack, the OPCW Fact Finding Team were able to get in on the ground.

America, Britain and France bombed anyway before they even got to work.

This is where the wheels came off the Fact Finding Missions and the investigation of these attacks.

The OPCW inspectors who were in charge of writing the original report ended up arranging to visit NATO weapons experts and chemical weapons experts, who gave unequivocal feedback that these people could not have been killed by chlorine.

There’s no sarin present, but the actual features you see on the civilians and the numbers don’t make sense if chlorine gas had been used. It would make sense if a nerve agent had been used, but not chlorine.

So immediately there was a problem.

At the point at which the interim report was supposed to be published, Brendan Whelan and the others produced a report saying, “Okay, we need to do more work, but we have toxicology findings that don’t support chlorine.”

They also raised concerns about the cylinders supposedly pouring chlorine down into the house and killing the 43 people in the building.

They set this out in a very objective interim report which essentially raised the possibility that this could well be a false flag.

That report was signed off by the Douma team. But at the point at which it went to publication, Brendan suddenly discovered that the report had been completely changed.

The report they’d written had been rewritten to basically imply that this was definitely a chlorine attack. “We’ve got a bit more research to do, but that’s pretty much what happened.”

That was the start of internal dissent within the OPCW, with Brendan Whelan challenging his superiors and saying, “What on earth is going on? Somebody has literally come in and rewritten our report.”

Everything from there, for about six, seven or eight months before the final report came out, involved internal battles going on within the OPCW.

Then when the final OPCW report came out in 2019 basically saying there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the Syrian government carried out a chlorine attack, the whistleblowers realised they had witnessed a manipulated and corrupted investigation.

They tried to speak out internally.

Other things started to happen. I was part of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, and we were leaked an engineering study commissioned by Ian Henderson, one of the OPCW inspectors.

The engineering assessment basically said that these yellow cylinders were more likely to have been placed by hand. It’s very unlikely they fell from helicopters.

The cylinders didn’t punch holes in ceilings. These cylinders were placed there.

We published that document in the Working Group and then all hell broke loose within the OPCW.

We’ll talk about Brendan’s win at the International Labour Organization in a few minutes. But the issue remains unaddressed by the OPCW.

The OPCW have continually refused to even meet with the scientists who were blowing the whistle.

As I say, everyone has been to varying degrees smeared.

Now we are in this kind of holding pattern on the issue where obviously the Syrian government fell in 2024.

The OPCW has created a new special missions office to try and seal up the Syria file. We’re all waiting for them to pull out some evidence, haul in some people they’re going to accuse, and so on.

But we don’t know what their play is going to be. They obviously have a huge amount of their credibility invested in this.

That was a long introduction, but that kind of covers everything, I think.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, it’s kind of a different approach to false flags than 9-11. 9-11 was one huge thing all happening on the same morning and hijacking headlines reverberating out from there.

Piers Robinson: As I said before, the basic setup with the OPCW Fact Finding Missions is they’re relying upon information supplied by the White Helmets.

Another thing which came out of the Douma scandal was that the Office of the Director General in the OPCW and the Chief of Cabinet — which is considered the key power position — had oversight.

You had a British career diplomat in charge during Douma, later replaced by a French career diplomat.

The political and bureaucratic office had oversight of the investigation, while the verification and scientific divisions of the OPCW were kept away.

So you actually had the political office taking control of the process.

We know at Douma that the 43 civilians who were found dead in the building were almost definitely killed somewhere else.

They were probably killed by Jaysh al-Islam, probably under the watch of British intelligence.

So you’ve got some pretty dirty dealings going on as part of this narrative building.

James Le Mesurier, as you probably know, fell to his death from his apartment building in Turkey two weeks after an OPCW official had given testimony at the Brussels panel.

There are a lot of question marks over how he came to fall off the roof of his building in the middle of the night.

But he was closely involved in this operation. We know that. We know he was this kind of channel between the White Helmets and the OPCW process.

Our involvement in this was pretty horrifying.

This is why when I was with a group of academics and we started looking at the Syria chemical weapons issue back in 2017 and early 2018 — this was before Douma — within weeks of setting up that Working Group we were on the front page of The Times of London being described as Assad apologists.

These were pretty unknown professors in Russell Group universities.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I remember that.

Piers Robinson: We realised, boy, we’re right over the target. They really, really wanted to shut us up.

Kevin Barrett: It didn’t take them long. With 9/11, the 9/11 Truth Movement had been building up slowly for several years before they finally pushed back in the summer of 2006.

That was also when a group of academics had gotten involved. Scholars for 9/11 Truth had suddenly gotten about 100 people on record, with the possibility of a lot more. That was when they pushed back.

Apparently you guys were doing a better job, or at least doing it quicker.

Piers Robinson: Tim’s still in position. I’ve worked hard to keep publishing in mainstream academic outlets and still managed to do that. I count that as a major victory given the amount of mud thrown at us.

But this is how the system works. You can shut people up by reputational attacks.

As I say, I’ve managed to get stuff published in the last few years.

We did this big report for Mick Wallace and Clare Daly when they were MEPs.

I’m writing a book and I had a meeting with a mainstream academic publisher and said, “This is the book I’m going to do on the whole Syria OPCW chemical weapons issue.”

There’s a chance I’ll get it out with a mainstream publisher.

But it’s difficult. As you know, there’s a lot of gatekeeping in academia.

But I’ve still managed to work with people in mainstream academia. I still publish and write and present and give talks.

It hasn’t been total exclusion. That was certainly my sense in 2019 and 2020. I thought, “Well, this is going to be the end of me having any involvement in mainstream academia.” But it hasn’t worked out that way.

Still, I’m a naive optimist about these things.

Kevin Barrett: Isn’t it bizarre how suddenly the fact that Syria is now controlled by ISIS and Al-Qaeda people — one would think it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to think those people might actually have been committing atrocities. Yet the media, which demonizes radical Islam and built the whole War on Terror on demonizing Al-Qaeda, is totally happy with having the president of Syria being Al-Qaeda because he represents the West.

Piers Robinson: It is amazing. That whole narrative flip or inversion of what we see is extraordinary.

Of course, this is picked up on by Massie and other American politicians.

The whole Islamic fundamentalist narrative was constructed. Essentially it’s false. This is a product of the intelligence agencies of the West, with Israel absolutely at the center of it, spinning a massive deception on audiences in the West.

Do you think we’re at the point — as we were saying in our last talk with Iran — is this a point of failure in the West? I’m not quite sure where it’s all going at the moment.

Kevin Barrett: I’m still hoping my predictions from 20 years ago hold true. I’ve always thought that a combination of a really grave military defeat plus an economic implosion could lead to the kind of situation that got the Argentine generals thrown out after the Falklands.

It seems like the global economy is heading for the cliff right now.

So it looks like that combination of a catastrophic military defeat followed by an economic implosion. Maybe when the pieces get swept up, that’s the time when the angry voices saying, “How did we get to this point?” start to be heard.

Piers Robinson: I probably feel the same as you. I’m hopeful and optimistic that there’s a context now where these things can properly unravel and there can be awareness, maybe even accountability.

But is there going to be another card played in terms of trying to distract populations? It’s difficult.

Clearly the international system is changing significantly. The distribution of power, whether economic, ideational or military, is clearly changing.

There’s clearly an awareness-raising going on in the US.

It’s realistic now to talk about whether it’s feasible for Israel to continue to exist in its current form given what has just happened.

That would have been unthinkable for polite liberals. People like me were considered jihadist crazies for saying things like that 20 years ago.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah.

Piers Robinson: But they’ve used up their support. Certainly globally it’s at rock bottom.

Even in the West, with what we see in Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk — that part of the American right clearly shifting away from this kind of blind support.

So something good might come out of that.

Kevin Barrett: Right, it’s kind of strange how they’re breaking out the UFO thing right now.

Piers Robinson: I think that’s just a sign of weakness. “Oh blimey, you can’t start any wars, you can only do false flags — what can we do now to distract the masses? Okay, we’ll have to go for the little green men.”

I don’t believe any of it. I think it’s PSYOP.

Kevin Barrett: I’m confused about what the reality is. But I agree with you about the propaganda value or propaganda purpose of what they’re doing right now.

We ended False Flag Weekly News this week with the flying saucer video landing on the White House lawn and burning into the lawn: “Release the Epstein files.”

I actually did dive into that topic because my PhD work was on Moroccan medieval Sufi saint legends, and those legends are built around miracle stories.

So that ties into my longstanding interest in questions of extraordinary phenomena.

It does seem that if the whole thing is a big propaganda operation built on nothing, they’ve put an awful lot of effort into it and gotten an awful lot of people involved in counterintuitive ways.

So I actually think there is something going on.

But whether we’re going to hear the truth from a government commission, especially Trump’s, I wouldn’t bet on that.

Piers Robinson: Yeah, they’re going to spin it.

I like to keep open-minded about all these things. There’s more things in heaven and earth and so on.

But for sure the stuff they’re pumping out is for the purpose of trying to distract from economic crisis.

Here in Europe there’s a lot of chatter about war with Russia.

Kevin Barrett: Right, and the elites are open about it. Maybe that’s the thing they’re going to do.

I don’t understand it. My whole life the assumption has been that Europeans are somewhat more rational than the crazy gung-ho Americans, much less the completely crazy gung-ho Israelis.

Piers Robinson: This is an unelected individual in charge of the European Union. This is what they say. It’s not what you hear on the street.

We’re in this kind of post-COVID era where there’s already widespread skepticism toward authorities.

But getting people ready to go to war really focuses the mind amongst the population.

I think there is this historical memory in Europe.

What German is going to want his son or daughter to go and die in trenches in Ukraine against Russia?

Even a lot of Ukrainians have been reluctant to go along with the press gangs grabbing them and throwing them into vans to take them off to the front-line trenches, almost like World War I except with drones.

Kevin Barrett: I don’t know what the attraction would be to that kind of war or to nuclear war, for that matter.

And I don’t understand the geostrategic purpose.

Honestly, with Europe, I had always thought it would be good if Europe had more power and maybe rearmed a little bit and was more independent and acted as a counterweight to the United States because I always thought the Europeans were more sensible.

But now I don’t know.

Piers Robinson: I think there might be some economic arguments in there in terms of remilitarization, like kickstarting the economy in a Keynesian kind of way.

But I suspect most of the rationale is probably elites keeping control of the population by constructing an external enemy.

There’s no strategic interest. Obviously it’s in Europe’s interest to have good relations with Russia. Russia is just over there with lots of cheap energy.

So I think there’s no core interest in going toward conflict with Russia.

This is elites. We have economic crisis. We have a financial system which is a house of cards. Everyone keeps asking when it’s going to collapse.

We have economies which clearly need to be recalibrated given the shifts in the distribution of power globally.

The world’s changing and I’m confident we will change because necessity forces change.

But as we go through that change you’ve got elites at the top who are trying to hold on to the existing order and their power.

This is one of the cards they’re playing: war against Russia.

There were big demonstrations in town. There were always local demos every week.

So there was pushback there. I think if we get pushed closer to war with Russia, you’ll see the same.

I remember that a year and a half ago Sahra Wagenknecht called a demo at Brandenburg Gate. Jeffrey Sachs was piped in by livestream. They pulled 50,000 people at a week’s notice over the Ukraine war.

Kevin Barrett: They arrest people for holding placards.

Piers Robinson: That was going down in Britain. All of that stuff is very much out of control.

But there’s a limit to what they can do with censorship as well.

They’re trying to control social media, but you can clamp down there and people will communicate in other ways.

I’ve always thought about internet-based communications and their desire to control discourse through technology.

Most people also go down the pub and talk to their friends. There is a social world outside the internet and governments can’t control that in the way they want to.

Kevin Barrett: This Iran war is the least popular war in US history right off the bat, and yet we’re not seeing huge crowds opposing it. We just see polls showing that nobody agrees with it.

Piers Robinson: That’s an interesting question. Support for European leaders is also rock bottom.

You have crazy leaders carrying out crazy policies which none of the people support.

Is this simply the death throes of the Western Empire? That’s always the backdrop I hope we’re seeing here — a painful process that big powerful blocs and empires go through as they accommodate to a new reality.

Kevin Barrett: It’s the emperor’s-clothes thing. But is Trump not already there? Half of his base now pretty much rejects the consensus.

Piers Robinson: That consensus group is fragmenting.

I’m guessing Charlie Kirk was killed for reasons that are not too difficult to fathom.

Kevin Barrett: The people who ran public opinion through the methods you’ve studied for so long are maybe having a harder time now and getting desperate as their empire crumbles. So let’s come back and talk about it as the crumbling continues.

Piers Robinson: Keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best.

Kevin Barrett: Thank you. Keep up the great work.

Piers Robinson: Okay, Kevin. Good to talk.

Kevin Barrett: Take care.

Piers Robinson: Take care.

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link

Watch the first-ever False Flag Weekly News roundtable above, featuring several of our favorite FFWN fans…plus long-time cohost Cat McGuire and her sister Colleen. (Cat and Colleen open the show discussing Cat’s health condition that led to her stepping down as regular first-cohost-of-the-month.)

I have dreamed of finding myself in a strange country where I can’t communicate with anyone. Since I am a native speaker of English, that won’t happen in real life the way it happened to my Moroccan in-laws who visited Turkey and found their Moroccan Arabic, French, and bare smattering of English didn’t work.

But I am experiencing something along those lines here in Milan, Italy. I arrived from Barcelona Saturday and have been trying to speak Italian with people. But it keeps coming out as Spanish with an Italian accent. People chuckle and answer me in English.

I studied Italian informally for less than a year back in 1989, and have barely used it since. I can read Italian newspapers, thanks to the many cognates with French and Spanish, but have forgotten how to say hello and order coffee.

Since I moved to Morocco in 2023 I have been spending a lot of time and effort upgrading my Arabic. Besides the radically different “high” and “low” varieties of Arabic, Morocco also features plenty of French, Spanish, and Amazigh (Berber). There are actually four to six types of low Arabic (darija) and three types of Amazigh. And high Arabic has two very different registers, Modern Standard Arabic and Classical. So you could say that there are thirteen native languages used in Morocco, a nation a little over half again as large as California.

I predicted to my students thirty years ago that communications barriers would fall within their lifetimes: English would become even more of a de facto global language, and translation technology would make most spoken and written information available to everybody. Fewer people would bother to learn foreign languages, because they wouldn’t have to. At some point they might not even have to learn English, since they could just speak into their phones and have it come out in whatever language they choose. Those in technical professions would find technical terminology available in their native languages thanks to machine translation. In short, it won’t be long before everybody can easily talk to everybody!

That AI-powered Tower of Babel is already half-built. If it ever reaches the heavens, humanity will seamlessly communicate as one. Then again, it might stall and fall, like the original Tower of Babel did. If that happens, it won’t be because humanity has been suddenly shattered into tribes with thousands of different languages, but because people aren’t satisfied with life as atomized individuals. They want families, neighborhoods, community.

The False Flag Weekly News Community

In 2014—a decade after jumping headlong into the 9/11 truth movement, and eight years after being defenestrated from academia—I created False Flag Weekly News along with Jim Fetzer and the late Allan Rees. Our idea was to critique the media by way of an hour-long weekly news roundup. We would try to cover the most significant stories of the week, debunking mainstream propaganda along the way.

I wanted the show to be snappy, fast-moving, heavy on terse but clever soundbites, with lots of back-and-forth repartee including occasional disagreements between hosts. Above all, I wanted to inject some humor. The horrible truths of history and current events are painfully indigestible without the spice of laughter.

We started out posting on several YouTube channels and growing a respectable audience, before shadowbanning and later deplatforming kicked in. After YouTube had banned all of the channels featuring the show, it moved to Rumble and Bitchute in 2021.

Along the way, FFWN has attracted an intellectually high-end audience, including some enthusiastic supporters who comment on the episodes and/or contribute to the Fundrazrs that keep the show going. (Preparing each week’s episode is labor-intensive, as the co-hosts who occasionally stand in for me can testify.)

Thinking “anyone who likes FFWN is probably a pretty cool person, I wouldn’t mind meeting some of them” I set up this week’s show as a roundtable discussion and emailed invitations. Watch the result and drop a comment letting me know what you think: Should I do this again?

Part of the fun was chatting with people before we started recording the show. If I do another episode like this, I’ll make sure to reserve a block of time before the actual show for informal discussion. I’ll also need to figure out how to moderate the discussion with greater dexterity, especially if the number of participants grows.

The highlight of the evening turned out to be Cat and Colleen McGuire’s surprise appearance. Cat McGuire, with often-unsung backing from her twin sister Colleen, has been an activism dynamo for at least a decade, and was the first FFWN co-host every month for years until brain cancer slowed her down last summer.

Virtual vs. Real Community

Cat McGuire is a real-life friend. I’ve visited her in New York, she has stayed in our guest room in Saidia, Morocco, and we’ve hung out in other places. She’s one of those people who, though neither family nor neighbor, I genuinely care about. I really miss connecting with her every month. I’m sad that she is so seriously ill, praying for her recovery, and appreciating the courage and wisdom she’s showing as she deals with her illness by taking her dedication to ihsaan (making things better) to the spiritual plane.

I doubt I’d feel that close to her if I only knew her through the internet. We humans are wired for hanging out with friends and family and neighbors in real life (or “meat space” as the autist cyberpunks used to call it). But the digitally-mediated world is giving us ever-less of that. Lonely people stare at their phones all day, addicted to reels and shorts and porn and social media outrage, manipulated by governments and corporations and their hired propagandists.

I’m one of the lucky ones who has escaped the worst digital traps and cesspools and instead met an unusually high-quality bunch of people thanks to the internet. I like all the people I’ve gotten to know through the False Flag Weekly News community, including those I’ve never met in real life. And being in Morocco, I’m lucky to be able to hop around Europe on $20 Ryan Air flights meeting some of them in person. (I once even randomly ran into a FFWN fan in Tamraght, Morocco, also about a twenty-buck flight from Oujda.)

My weird existence as a rootless red-pilled cosmopolitan (tendance sois-disant antisémite) with a virtual community spread across the world is probably not what human nature intends. Celia Farber, another real-life friend I met through Cat, tells me she craves settling down in a place she can call home, but isn’t quite sure where that would be. Since she has friends in Sweden, she’s thinking of heading there.

Assuming the jet fuel doesn’t run out, I expect to be back home in Saidia, Morocco by early June. I’m loosely affiliated with a soon-to-open café-bookstore there, Café Shakespeare, where people will be encouraged to hang out and have interesting conversations in real life. Maybe a False Flag Weekly News fan or two will eventually find their way to Saidia.

Meanwhile, the show must go on. Stay tuned to False Flag Weekly News, and feel free to drop by the next roundtable.

Rumble link Bitchute link

Monika Wiesak is the author of America’s Last President: What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy . In it, she explains in detail why the loss of JKF mattered far more than not only the likes of Chomsky claim, but even more than most of Kennedy's admirers realize. She also dares to explore the possibility, following Michael Collins Piper, Laurent Guyenot, and Ron Unz, that Israel was the prime force behind the assassination. Check out her new Substack article on that increasingly hot topic…it’s very useful background information for those wondering why so many voices with huge audiences including Cenk Uyger and Tucker Carlson, Lawrence Wilkerson and Judge Napolitano, Wilkerson and Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Candace Owens, and most importantly former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who says that more than 10,000 JFK files have been illegally withheld because they reveal that Israel did it have been saying such things.

Transcript

Kevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audio Visual. I’m Kevin Barrett, doing the radio show for years and now some video too. I try to bring on important authors and writers to translate the written word into some spoken dialogue. We have a very important author today, Monika Weisak. She’s written some great books on a number of topics, probably none more important than America’s Last President: What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy. So…hello Monika, how are you?

Monika Wiesak:
I’m good. Thank you very much for having me on today.

Kevin Barrett: It’s great to have you and meet you. I admire your work. Here is your book on JFK, America’s Last President: What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy. And I think it’s an important book because the only thing remotely close to it that I know of anyway is the James Douglass book JFK and the Unspeakable, which is primarily about the assassination, but it touches on the reasons for the assassination, which were essentially that John F. Kennedy was standing up for the public interest against a long list of people who didn’t have the public interest in mind at all. But your book focuses on that and not so much on the assassination, and I think it’s a great contribution, so congratulations.

Monika Wiesak: Thank you.

Kevin Barrett: The last chapters on the assassination kind of hint—actually, you could go from that last chapter to the Douglass book, and it would be a pretty good segue, wouldn’t it?

Monika Wiesak: Yeah, what I wanted to do is, I felt like nobody had really answered the question. The subtitle of the book is What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy. And I felt like no book had really properly answered that question because the first question to ask about any massive historical assassination is what changed, or what did we lose, or why does it matter? And I felt like a lot of the books were focusing on the technicalities of the assassination or were theorizing about what might have happened.

Kevin Barrett: That’s a great point. And that’s actually something that doesn’t come out nearly as forcefully in the Douglass book. It’s kind of implicit, right?And it’s quite shocking, really, how radically different the world might have been had the Kennedy program succeeded. And how do we even start to think about something that massive?

Monika Wiesak: Yes. It’s sort of why I put it together, because it was so much more than I imagined. Before I studied his presidency, what I’d kind of heard rumblings of was, oh, maybe Vietnam or things of that nature, but it’s really the whole world. It’s Africa, it’s the Congo, it’s Latin America, it’s Indonesia, it’s Laos and Vietnam, it’s the Middle East, it’s Palestine. All of these policies changed drastically upon his assassination.

Kennedy was very much in support of Third World nationalism. He gave a lot of foreign aid to Africa, to Latin America. I think foreign aid to Africa increased something like fivefold. He did the Alliance for Progress for Latin America, which was to help those countries become independent and help make them not so reliant on just a primary export, but really to develop their own economies.

I think he just viewed the world as sort of... We were catering to the ultra-wealthy in the United States, as we do today, rather than the lives of your average American.

Kevin Barrett: Right. That quality of Kennedy’s, that he actually had compassion for ordinary people and wanted to set policies that served their interests, really shines through in your book. And that includes both Americans and people outside of the U.S. And I think a lot of people have missed much, if not all, of this. I know for many years I’d read people like Noam Chomsky, who is anti-Kennedy and basically tries to claim that anybody who cares about that assassination is completely misguided and Kennedy was ruthless.

So to what do you attribute that kind of second assassination of Kennedy that came from many different quarters, including from the left, from Chomsky? What was behind that?

Monika Wiesak: Yeah, it’s got to be because they don’t want people to care, right? If you want to cover up a coup d’état that occurred, one of the easiest ways to cover it up—there’s two ways to cover it up, right? One is to cover up the crime itself, which they did with the Warren Commission and whatnot. But they didn’t do a great job of it because it’s a difficult crime to physically cover up.

So the other way to cover it up is to make people not care. And in some ways that’s a more effective way.

Like Chomsky said, “Who cares who killed JFK? Who cares if it was a jealous husband?” Implying it doesn’t even matter if it was a conspiracy. It doesn’t even matter if it wasn’t Oswald because Kennedy meant nothing to this world.

Kevin Barrett: Was he alluding to Cord Meyer and Kennedy’s relationship?

Monika Wiesak: I don’t know what he was alluding to, but I think what he was alluding to was that it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if Oswald did it or not because nothing changed when Kennedy died, I think is what Chomsky’s argument is. And you have to really question Chomsky because it’s very obvious that a massive amount did change. One just needs to look at the historical record to see that. So one has to wonder what Chomsky’s intentions were in downplaying it.

And I think his intentions were to make people not care. He said that bluntly: why should anyone care?

And so I think it’s because something like the assassination of a president is something that can really mobilize people. There are a lot of atrocities happening around the world, and it’s a horrible thing to say, but it’s difficult to get Americans to really understand those atrocities or really put in the effort to try to correct them because they don’t really grasp them. They’re so distant from Americans’ everyday lives.

But the murder of America’s president—people understand that. People grasp that. People are impacted by that. So that’s something that could actually mobilize the public.

Kevin Barrett: Chomsky also said at one point—and I think when people pressed him on JFK and made some of the points you just made—he switched tacks and said that it would be sort of fatal for the left, meaning his people, to try to take on the people who had the power to kill a president. They would be far too powerful to take on. It would be suicide to try to take them on. He actually said that, which struck me as bizarre.

Monika Wiesak:
Yeah, that is bizarre, because if enough people speak about it, there’s nothing that can be done about it. You can’t stop the truth if enough people speak on it. Chomsky had a pretty large following, so he absolutely could have mobilized people to try to do something about the Kennedy assassination if he wanted to.

Kevin Barrett:
Or 9/11, for that matter.

Monika Wiesak:
Yeah, or any major crime. I think he could have mobilized people, but he chose not to, and I think that makes his career look highly problematic.

Kevin Barrett:
Yeah, I agree completely. So getting back to this situation that Kennedy faced, it was kind of an interesting historical moment, wasn’t it, with the Cold War taking on a whole new dimension as the USSR was just bringing online a really serious nuclear weapons force that could challenge the American force and actually would match and challenge it within a decade.

Kennedy takes over just in time to start overseeing that. And he is really pretty much the only U.S. president, one of very few global leaders in the West, that’s sympathetic to these movements that shook off European domination. Those two things by themselves already, even setting aside the economy and the economic issues and the civil rights issues and so on and so forth, this was really a world historical moment, wasn’t it?

Monika Wiesak:
Oh, absolutely. And I think there were two major things happening at that time.

One was there was a real risk of World War III. There were many in the U.S. military who were itching for war with the Soviets, who thought now is the time to get rid of the Soviets. We have to do it before 1963, before their weapons become too sophisticated. If we do it now, like you said, we might only lose 20 million. If we wait a few years...

And at the same time, all of these countries in Africa particularly, but all around the world, had just recently become independent. When Eisenhower was president, he had on average one African leader a year come to the White House. During Kennedy’s 36 months, he had on average one African leader or head of state a month come to the White House.

Kevin Barrett:
I didn’t know that until I read your book. That’s fascinating.

Monika Wiesak:
Yeah. So pretty much every month he’d have some head of state from Africa come to the United States to visit. It wasn’t just that he gave them a lot of aid, but he formed very friendly relations with them. He rolled out the red carpet for them.

When Algeria went independent, he had this huge event at the White House. It was just this spectacular event for them. And you can’t imagine that happening today in the U.S., all these countries being celebrated.

He pushed Portugal hard to try to give Angola independence during his presidency. And he was very supportive of these countries staying unaligned. Back then there was something called the Non-Aligned Movement. That was countries that didn’t want to align with the United States or with the Soviets, but just kind of wanted to be independent and make their own decisions. And Kennedy was very supportive of the Non-Aligned Movement, which was led by Sukarno, the president of Indonesia. They had a conference in Belgrade while he was president, and Kennedy was very supportive of that.

So he was not into America being the dominant power. He was into America having friendly relations with all these other independent nations, and he felt that was best for the stability of the world and that was best for Americans.

It wasn’t to the benefit of the average American for the U.S. to be an imperial power. It wasn’t to the benefit of the average American for the U.S. to get caught up in wars or to be dominated by a few oligarchs. It was best for the average American to live in a peaceful, cooperative world with other countries. That’s sort of how Kennedy viewed the world.

Kevin Barrett:
Flynn and Hillary Leverett wrote Going to Tehran, arguing for a sort of JFK-style policy towards Iran. In other words, we don’t have to be totally hostile and constantly sponsor terrorism against them, trying to overthrow their government. We can disagree with them on certain things, but also have a productive relationship, trade with them. We’ll get more influence that way.

But those people never seem to win ever since Kennedy was killed. And you have to think there’s kind of a direct link there.

Monika Wiesak:
Oh, absolutely. Kennedy actually visited Iran in 1951. It wasn’t in my book, but he went in 1951. Then he went on these TV shows afterwards, and he wrote in his diary that the U.S. should work with Mossadegh, that the British were being really unfair, and that the British were exploiting the Iranian people, and that America needed to work with Mossadegh and with the people in Iran. So his view is very opposite to what happened later, which was the coup in 1953 that installed the Shah.

Even back then, as a young congressman—he wasn’t even senator yet—he was already going on TV and talking about the importance of supporting local populations and supporting their desires. He just viewed the world in a very different way, and I think he would be absolutely horrified at what’s happening in the Middle East today.

And he predicted it, right? Because if you look at his letters and his memos and his meetings, one quote he said in his meetings—which wasn’t in my book—is that he wanted the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, or one of the most important reasons to get the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, was to stop countries like Israel and Egypt from getting nukes. And he’s like, if they get nukes, we’re going to be, quote unquote, “in a bitch of a scenario.”

So that’s where we are. That’s exactly where we are 60 years later. I think he would be horrified, but I don’t think he’d be surprised because he felt like this is where it would lead if something wasn’t done to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle, so to speak.

Kevin Barrett: Indeed, yeah. And I think he would probably be one of the few mainstream American politicians to very strongly condemn the genocide of Gaza as well. That’s something that you can’t imagine Kennedy presiding over: the United States supporting Israel flattening Gaza and killing tens of thousands of women and children that way.

Monika Wiesak: No, because when he was president, he supported Palestinian right of return. Now, he tried to do it in a very fair way in terms of it wasn’t just “everybody go back,” but everybody gets the choice to go back. So he supported the Joseph Johnson plan through the UN, where the idea was that every refugee would get the choice to go back, the choice to be compensated, or the choice to move to another nation.

And it was sort of in favor of compensation. Because it was sort of in favor of compensation, they estimated maybe 10% of refugees would choose to go back. But they felt that was a fair way where everyone would get a choice, where it wouldn’t flood Israel with refugees at the same time.

But obviously the Joseph Johnson plan ended up falling apart. Israel was very opposed to it. A lot of the Arab nations were opposed to it because they thought it was unfair.

Kevin Barrett: And there are many people today arguing that the driving force behind the assassination was probably Israel and its friends in the American establishment, especially the CIA and especially a certain James Jesus Angleton. That debate is still ongoing, but I think the people arguing that the Israeli factor was probably bigger than the Vietnam factor are picking up steam. And to the extent that that’s the case, that certainly would reinforce what you said: that the Middle East would be radically different today if he had lived.

Monika Wiesak:
Oh, absolutely. I think it’s by far the greatest long-term impact and the greatest short-term impact. And that’s kind of why I put out a Substack article a week or two ago to show the timeline of Kennedy’s policies toward Israel and a timeline of the assassination so people can see how closely those two timelines line up.

Kennedy had started some cursory inspections of Dimona in September 1962, but Israel concocted this elaborate ruse to fool inspectors. Kennedy then spoke with Golda Meir on December 27, 1962, and he said, “I want much more thorough and frequent access to Dimona.”

So really that whole spring into the summer, into June, Israel kept delaying JFK. They kept coming up with excuse after excuse as to why they couldn’t do inspections. Finally JFK got fed up in the middle of May. He even considered leaking Ben-Gurion’s refusal to the papers.

But then Ben-Gurion responded and said, “We can do inspections at the end of the year.” And Kennedy responded and said, “No, the end of the year is not acceptable. I want inspections this summer.” And the next day Ben-Gurion resigned.

So to me, it looks like Ben-Gurion’s plan was to stay and delay Kennedy to the end of the year. When Kennedy wasn’t going for that, he had no choice but to resign, as that was the only way left to delay Kennedy. And of course when he resigned, a new administration came into place and they immediately contacted the State Department. They were still writing letters to the U.S. saying, “Don’t worry, these French rumors are false. You’re going to get your inspections before the reactor goes critical.”

And of course Kennedy gets assassinated. The reactor goes critical in early January, and no inspections ever happen before it goes critical. There were some inspections Lyndon Johnson did after it went critical, but they’re not at all the inspections that Kennedy wanted.

And I think it’s a fair question to ask: because there were also memos speculating where are they getting their uranium from, because they were trying to figure out where they were getting their materials from. So there’s an argument to be made that if those inspections happened, maybe they would have figured out that the uranium came from NUMEC in Pennsylvania. And that could have potentially, at the very least for negligence if for nothing else, implicated Angleton.

So I think Angleton had a personal motive to make sure Kennedy doesn’t find out what’s going on at Dimona, where this uranium was coming from, because that has personal impact on him, forget the geopolitical impact. So I think in the immediate term they tremendously benefited from the assassination because whatever was going on there was never uncovered. And if Kennedy had determined that there was some illegal activity going on, he would have gone after that. There’s no doubt. And with Bobby Kennedy as attorney general, there could have been a lot of people in a lot of trouble potentially. But then also in the long term, because they still have the bomb today, and the reason that they’re able to do what they did in Gaza these last few years, I think a big part of the reason is because they have nukes. And when you have nukes, you can get away with a lot more than you would have been able to get away with if you didn’t have nukes.

So they’re still benefiting from that crime every single day of every year for the last 60-plus years. And they’ll still be benefiting from it probably 100 years from now, 200 years from now, 300 years from now. As long as they have nuclear weapons, they’ll be benefiting from the Kennedy assassination. Because I think there’s a good chance that JFK would have not just shut down their nuclear program in that moment, but if he had caught them funneling materials from the U.S. and whatnot, he might have permanently shut down their nuclear program and it was never getting off the ground again.

And so I think people really have to look at the long-term ramifications. Because when you look at something like Vietnam, yes, it was absolutely horrific. Yes, it would not have happened had Kennedy stayed president. But it’s not happening today. So that was more of a short-term benefit of the assassination.

And the other thing is, if you look at the timelines, that assassination planning seems to have activity going on that’s setting up the assassination starting in the spring of ‘63. Kennedy didn’t sign that NSAM to withdraw the first advisors until October ‘63, but the assassination planning is far along by then. So I don’t think signing that NSAM to withdraw the advisors had any impact on the assassination. Again, we’ve already had movements in like March and April that seems to be setting this assassination in motion. So to me, like I’m looking at what was happening in late 1962, early 1963 to set this thing in motion. And that’s sort of what I wanted to emphasize with my timeline is, at least for me, a lot of people view it as Kennedy was just too problematic of a president. You know, he—there’s—it’s just he was going to get assassinated because, to your point, Kevin, he was making too many power segments angry. And I think that’s why they were able to get away with it, whoever did it, because nobody cared for Kennedy. They were all like, “Thank God he’s gone,” I think was the general kind of sense.

Kevin Barrett: There was supposedly applause that broke out in the CIA station in South Korea when the news of his assassination broke, which is really kind of astounding and disgusting.

Monika Wiesak: Yeah. So I think there were many, many power sectors that were relieved to see him gone. I don’t want to use the word simplistic, but it’s almost like when you mesh together a bunch of motives that you’re not really thinking about timelines and you’re not really thinking about when did this start, what could have triggered it. Whereas for me, timelines are really important, and I think it’s important to look at those policies that did change during that time period that were crucial in November 1963 that couldn’t wait till re-election because Kennedy was about to go into a re-election year.

I mentioned in my article that Goldwater was a bigger hawk on Vietnam than LBJ. So if I’m someone that wants the Vietnam War, why not just sabotage his reelection campaign? And I don’t know—again, I don’t know who was behind the assassination. I can’t say anything for certain, but I think people need to take into account: who wanted LBJ in power, who couldn’t wait until Goldwater, how do these timelines line up? And these are all really important questions.

And I think we need to get into those details rather than just saying everyone in power hated Kennedy, because then we’ll never get to the bottom of it. Because then it just stays as this vague thing, he killed by this vague entity, rather than, no, he was killed by people with names and faces. And I think we need to figure out who those names and faces were.

Kevin Barrett: Right. I recently learned that Edward J. Epstein had created a shadow 9/11 commission after 9/11 and invited Ghislaine Maxwell to join it. And that raised all kinds of alarm bells for me because way back in the day, when I started looking at this, back in the 1970s, when Edward J. Epstein was publishing JFK assassination stuff, including—what was that book of his on Oswald?

Monika Wiesak: Legend.

Kevin Barrett: It’s called Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald. And in that book, apparently his main source was Angleton, who now everybody suspects is the CIA guy that the Israelis went through to kill Kennedy. Epstein was involved in the suspected Mossad assassination of George De Mohrenschildt to prevent him from testifying at the House Investigations Committee. So the fact that this very suspicious character who seems to be involved in covering up the JFK assassination for Angleton and the Israelis, namely Edward J. Epstein, was inviting Ghislaine Maxwell onto a shadow 9/11 commission, whatever that was—you know, it made me wonder whether there was like a shadow JFK commission too that Epstein had been on—namely people on the inside who are trying to prevent the truth from coming out. And that the same Epstein somehow wound up on the same thing for 9/11, which frankly I think was probably perpetrated by the same people who killed JFK. So that’s a lot of stuff to throw at you, but there it is.

Monika Wiesak: Yeah, so I know Epstein wrote a book. I didn’t read his book, but it questioned the official narrative in terms of Oswald being the lone gunman. And I think it questioned the official narrative, so he was considered a skeptic or a Warren Commission critic. But then he used Angleton as his source for the article.

And so, you know—and then everybody—I don’t think there’s very much—there’s no doubt that Angleton controlled Oswald’s files. I think everyone’s in agreement in that. I think everyone who studies the assassination views Angleton as a suspicious character. I think he’s the one person that everyone agrees on. Whoever people think the prime culprit was, they all tend to agree that Angleton was central to this thing because he controlled Oswald’s files. He was sort of the architect of the Oswald legend or whatnot, or at least one of the architects.

So I think everyone suspects Angleton regardless of their view of the assassination. And the fact that then Epstein used Angleton as a source for his book does make you wonder: was this to drive skeptics in a certain direction? Was this to mislead skeptics and get them spending time on something they shouldn’t be spending time on or looking into things they shouldn’t be looking into rather than focusing on other things?

And I do think in a lot of ways not enough focus is given on Kennedy’s policies. And that’s another reason when I wrote America’s Last President and why I didn’t want to even touch on the assassination, because I feel like people feel they can solve the crime by studying Dealey Plaza, and it doesn’t work that way. You have to first really understand the intricacies of Kennedy’s policies and the timings of his policies and when everything was happening.

Because sort of what happened to me is that I had read Douglass’s book, JFK and the Unspeakable. And the conclusions in the book made no sense to me at all because it was sort of like: “We want war, we want war, we kill this man, we control the autopsy. If we want, we can say there were multiple shooters—the easiest excuse in the world to say that the Cubans did it. But no, instead we push this lone nut theory. And we do it all because LBJ said so.”

So you’re going to kill one president and then just listen to the next who tells you he’s not going to give you what you want? It just made no sense to me—that conclusion of that book made no sense to me. And so I was like, I don’t know what happened, but I know this didn’t happen, like not the way—or at least this hypothesis can’t be correct.

I went to study Kennedy’s presidency, and then the other thing I realized right away was, well, wait a minute, this whole story or thesis that he changed is not accurate either. Because I can see here based in the 1940s, 1950s, he’s an anti-colonialist, he’s pro-peace. In his very first State of the Union, he’s talking about we should explore space with the Soviets. This wasn’t in 1963—he’s saying this in January 1961.

So I’m realizing, wait, that’s not right either. And so that’s what made me think this can only be solved if people really, really study his policies, really understand them, because his policies were incredibly consistent. He was always pro-peace. He was always anti-colonialism. He was never working for the oligarchs. He didn’t go through this massive transformation during his presidency.

I mean, obviously the Cuban Missile Crisis impacted him as a human being. How could it not? So I’m not trying to underscore the fact that he wasn’t emotionally impacted by that event, because I think he was. But his views didn’t change. It maybe reinforced the views he already had.

So I just feel like we really need to focus on Kennedy’s policies, on the timelines of those policies, and also what was immediately urgent, what was long-term urgent, and things like that, and not oversimplify it because I feel people oversimplify it too much as “Kennedy was a good guy, he was working for the people, so he got killed.” And while I agree that that’s true, it keeps you from really studying the assassination in any depth because you oversimplify it.

You oversimplify it when you say, “Oh, the military-industrial complex hated JFK.” But JFK increased military spending. So why is some war profiteer or military contractor going to kill someone who’s increasing their profits? As a percentage of GDP, military spending back then was much higher than it is today.

Kevin Barrett: Until Trump’s increase kicks in.

Monika Wiesak: Yeah. Yes, I should say that. Yeah. But it stayed stable between JFK and LBJ. And the reason Kennedy was a big military spender is not because he wanted to go to war, but he wanted to diversify the defense establishment. So he was horrified—absolutely horrified—by the fact that his military were like, “Well, if we get into any little scuffle with the Soviets, just drop your nukes.” And that to him was absolutely horrifying. He’s like, “I don’t want my first response to a small scuffle to be to drop a nuke. So I want to build a really diversified military, you know, where I’ve got lots of options.” And at that time there was also a real risk of war with the Soviets. I mean, war was a very real possibility at that time. And that’s another reason he wanted a strong military: He felt that that would discourage the Soviets from being aggressive…so that the Soviets feel like, “You know what? It’s not worth being in this arms race with the US. We should just agree to some sort of disarmament, and that’s going to be best for both parties.” And that was Kennedy’s view.

And if you listen to his meetings or in phone calls, he says himself, “The only reason I was able to get a nuclear test ban ratified is because I had increased military spending, because the Senate would have never, ever ratified my treaty if I hadn’t increased military spending.”

And so people get so confused about JFK, and it’s easy to say, “Oh, he changed.” But he didn’t change. He always was a big military spender because he wanted to diversify the defense establishment, because he wanted to avoid war, and because he wanted to negotiate true multilateral nuclear disarmament. And he felt the only way to do that is to have a strong negotiating position.

And so I think there’s a lot of misunderstandings about what Kennedy’s goals were and what he was doing. But I didn’t see any change. That’s just from studying Kennedy’s presidency.

Kevin Barrett: I suspected that he may have changed in a certain way based on the Bay of Pigs experience when he first came into office and he was greeted with this disaster in the making when they lied to him and told him, “Oh, just send this handful of CIA-backed Cuban exiles into Cuba and the people will rise up and overthrow the government. Everybody will live happily ever after.” And that was a total lie. The CIA knew that this was just a trick to get it going so then they would send in the military.

I think that did maybe change him a bit in terms of waking him up to some of the realities of power, and how some of his naive assumptions that these people had good intentions back when he was a so-called 50s Cold Warrior were not true. So I think that was a change to some extent, wasn’t it?

Monika Wiesak: Yes. No, that’s an excellent point. When I say he didn’t change, I meant his ideals or his goals. But I think he absolutely became smarter. And so I think what you said is very crucial and very important and very accurate, is that he did learn from the Bay of Pigs. He learned not to trust his advisors. He learned how manipulative the national security state can be and how he was manipulated into this event.

And he blamed himself for it. He took responsibility. He didn’t blame anyone else for it. So he absolutely grew. He absolutely became smarter, became more savvy. So when I say he didn’t change, I don’t want to make it sound like he didn’t improve because he did grow and he did improve and he did become more savvy. It was more his ideals, his overall world vision, that didn’t change, if that makes sense.

Kevin Barrett: Exactly. He didn’t suddenly go from being a Cold Warrior to a hippie peacenik because he took LSD.

Monika Wiesak: Yeah.

Kevin Barrett: But yeah, so there’s an interesting possible parallel here between Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs and then Trump in this attack on Iran—although in a sense they’re total opposite characters—because in both cases the presidents were lied into a ridiculous doomed attack. Kennedy was told that the Cuban people would support these exiles, and Trump was told the Iranian people will just love it if we murder their leaders and blow up their schoolgirls.

So you think that that parallel—the scary thing about that parallel to me, Monika, is that the CIA, when they lied to Kennedy, what did they think would happen? Well, they were planning to invade and take over Cuba.

How about the Israelis? What did they really think would happen? Were they really stupid enough to believe that this so-called decapitation attack would somehow regime-change Iran into being pro-Israel and pro-America? Or another puppet government would somehow be acceptable to the Iranians? I can’t believe that they’re that stupid.

So I’m concerned that just as the CIA wanted the Bay of Pigs provocation to trigger a full-scale invasion, Israel knew the first phase would fail and wanted something much bigger that they hoped would follow.

Monika Wiesak: And they figured as soon as it failed, Kennedy being a new president would get scared of this big failure and would send in the military to fix it, right? That was their hope. Their hope was to con JFK into sending the military into Cuba.

And of course JFK didn’t fall for the—well, he fell for part of the con, although I guess in his defense, you know, this was all set up before his presidency and he didn’t know what to do with those exiles because those exiles had to leave. I think they were in Guatemala. You know, they couldn’t stay there. They would either have to come to the US and be angry and frustrated because they were already promised to return to the island. So he had to do something. Like doing nothing was not an option for Kennedy.

But nevertheless, I think he wouldn’t have done that if he knew that that’s how it was going to go. And so he did get conned, you know, JFK. And I think the other thing is all of his advisors were telling him to do it.

Kevin Barrett: With Trump, Hegseth was the only one who was really on board and the rest were all sort of, you know, “Well, that sounds a little dubious.” Or, you know, Vance supposedly was the only one who said it’s really not a good idea, but even he didn’t say it’s really not a good idea as he should have.

Yeah, so I think there’s definitely parallels, but there’s some differences between the two situations as well…how about Trump being an anti-JFK?

Monika Wiesak: Oh, absolutely. Because JFK, like even though everyone told him to do it, he was like, “It’s my fault. It’s 100% my fault. Like, you know, I’m the president. I should have made a better decision. I should have analyzed this better. I should have pushed back against my advisors. It’s not the advisors’ job to govern this country. It’s my job. So hence, it’s my fault.”

You know, like he said, “Victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan.” And he’s like, “Well, you know, I have to take full responsibility for this.”

I don’t think Trump would ever admit to any mistake in his life. You know what I mean? He’s always bragging about how great he is, how wonderful he is, how he’s the most amazing president and the most amazing leader.

Kevin Barrett: He knows more about anything than everybody.

Monika Wiesak: Yeah. So I don’t think he’ll ever admit to a mistake. I don’t think he’ll ever admit that he was conned. I think he’s always going to try to make it sound rosy and as though everything is going according to how he planned. So they’re very, very different character-wise, JFK and Trump.

Kevin Barrett: And what does it say about the American people, that the American people actually appreciated Kennedy taking the blame for the Bay of Pigs and his poll ratings went up in the aftermath of that, which really pissed off people like Allen Dulles and the CIA guys, especially when Kennedy then fired them. So the American people were actually kind of appreciating Kennedy’s style at that time.

Monika Wiesak: Oh, absolutely. Because we just had real leadership back then. We had someone who cared about people, who cared about doing a good job, who was very committed to his job, who was very hardworking, who had great character, and who was very honest. And the other thing that I sort of put a chapter in America’s Last President about it is when Kennedy was president, 80% of the public trusted the government. Today, about 20% of the public trust the government.

Kevin Barrett: Indeed. Can you imagine it turning around? Is there any possibility that somebody with a kind of JFK approach would have any traction in today’s world?

Monika Wiesak: I think it would be extremely, extremely difficult. I think one of the reasons Kennedy was able to slip through is because he came from a very wealthy family. So he campaigned for years even before he officially announced he was running for president. He would fly every weekend with Ted Sorensen often to all these small towns across America for the couple years before he announced he was running for the presidency. He was unofficially campaigning for a long time in a very grassroots way. He had the money to do that. He had the money to travel, to visit people.

And I think because he was so wealthy, he was not as dependent on other donors. He didn’t feel as beholden to these big money donors as maybe other politicians feel beholden to them and dependent upon them. And he also had a lot of unique life experiences because he suffered a lot during his life. He had horrible back pain. He almost died multiple times in his life. He was very sickly at times in his life. You know, as I said, his life was saved by indigenous islanders.

So he had this very unique experience where he understood struggle and pain, but yet he came from this ultra-wealthy family. And so it was kind of like lightning in a bottle, so to speak. And I think sort of these things allowed him to kind of sneak through.

And television was just becoming a thing then. And he was, I think, very TV-savvy. And, you know, I think he gave a very good appearance. And so I think that helped him a lot with TV being a new medium at that time.

So I think today would be extremely difficult. It would have to be someone wealthy. I don’t think someone without a lot of wealth would stand a chance because it costs so much money to run. And so you need someone who’s financially independent enough to do it and who’s willing to put their money on the line, so to speak, and who’s willing to do it over the long term like Kennedy campaigned over years.

Because you’re not getting necessarily the media support, so you have to do it yourself, which with social media today, you know, it might be easier for someone to get out there and reach a large audience.

And so I think it’s possible, but unfortunately I think it would have to be someone very wealthy who kind of, for whatever reasons, disagreed with parts of the establishment and sort of, you know, get in there.

But then the problem becomes what’s going to prevent that person from being assassinated? You know, if it happened in 1963, what’s to say it can’t happen again? And I think that’s why it’s really important to have a truth and reconciliation about Kennedy, not only because America has to heal from what happened—and I don’t think America can heal until the truth about that assassination comes out.

Kevin Barrett: Indeed. And if that does happen, and if the truth ever comes out, and it does turn out the way we suspect it might, which is with a major role for the state of Israel, political consequences of that would be pretty powerful, wouldn’t it?

Monika Wiesak: Yes. No, absolutely. I mean, I think like whatever the truth is, I know it’s not going to be pretty, but it has to come out. You can’t heal until you have the truth. You have to start with that regardless of how ugly it is.

Kevin Barrett: I agree. And I think maybe the truth could clear the space for the possibility of these kinds of public-spirited idealists getting back into politics and displacing the increasingly unfortunate cretins that we’ve had over most of my lifetime.

Well, thank you, Monika Wiesak Wazick. It’s been a good hour of conversation. I appreciate your great work. I look forward to talking with you again about a couple of your other books as well.

Monika Wiesak: Thank you.

Kevin Barrett: Okay, thank you. And where can people find your book?

Monika Wiesak: Oh, they can buy it on Amazon, ThriftBooks, Barnes & Noble. There’s also an audio version. I self-recorded the audio, so it’s not professional. But if you can handle my voice, you can check that out as well.

Kevin Barrett: Oh, cool.

Monika Wiesak: And yeah, so you can find it at all the major outlets.

Kevin Barrett: Okay. America’s Last President: What the World Lost When It Lost John F. Kennedy. Highly recommended. Thank you, Monika Wiesak. God bless.

Monika Wiesak: See you down the road, inshallah.

Kevin Barrett: Thank you. Bye.

Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees.

THIS WEEK’S FFWN STORY LIST: https://truthjihad.com/2026/05/15/ffwn-roundtable-this-sunday-1-pm-eastern-you-can-participate/

SPECIAL THIS WEEK! YOUR CHANCE TO PARTICIPATE! We’ve been doing so well on these Fundrazrs—and the news has been so intense—that I hate to take the week off just because I’m on the road. So I’m going to try a new idea: A FFWN roundtable discussion. All FFWN fans are warmly invited to join via Zoom! You can contribute (or not) at your own pace, with your camera on or off. To participate just email me ASAP at TruthJihad(at)gmail(dot)com and I’ll plan to send you the link around 1pm Eastern this SUNDAY. (Not Saturday, because I’m traveling then.)

NOTE: I plan to do this special show regardless of how well the Fundrazr does. A huge thank you to everyone who’s been helping keep the show afloat!

Laurent Guyénot has posted our conversation about the relationship between philosophy and religion, focusing on Islam.

Also, Press TV posted a short extract from yesterday’s interview.

Rumble link Bitchute link

Rumble link Bitchute link

Excerpt:

Press TV: It was the US that started this aggression on Iran. It was the US that then had to propose a ceasefire. It was also the US that then had to extend unilaterally the ceasefire. Then it was also the US that had to call off its so-called Project Freedom. And most recently it was US destroyers that had to flee as the Iranian army, as the Iranian navy targeted them when they were targeting Iranian tankers. Iran has said that another targeting of Iranian tankers and they would target American centers in the region and also American tankers.

So the U.S. did everything it could. We’re talking about decades of sanctions. We’re talking about all kinds of coup attempts, bloody coup attempts, especially more recently when more than 3,400 Iranians were murdered as a result of U.S.-Israeli agents on the ground hijacking peaceful protests, turning it into riots. And then, of course, we had war imposed on Iran.

So Iran has been the victor in this battle. Iran was the one who was able to push back the western enemy, the American enemy, and so there is no reason for Iran to make any concessions, especially because when Iran was bombed a second time, Iran was negotiating, was talking about making concessions on its nuclear program, not to an international body, not to the IAEA.

And Iran had of course warned the U.S. that another aggression on Iran and you will be faced with all kinds of response, from extreme retaliation, from a regional war to a new management office, which has shut out all American warships and Israeli warships as well.

This is what the U.S. brought upon itself. Now that they have exhausted all their cards, they have exhausted all their options, and now that their inflation jumped to 3.8 percent, which is the highest. And so it will act as such and it will demand basically what is the rights of the Iranian nation.

Kevin Barrett: Yes, this has been a really amazing period to be witnessing, especially from my perspective, because I got interested in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the revolution when I was young, but I didn’t become a specialist or expert in it. I started really paying attention about 15 years ago.

And I’ve really grown to appreciate the genius of Iran’s Islamic Republican leadership over the decades in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of this ongoing attempt to destroy it and to regime change Iran and to turn Iran back into a U.S.-Zionist client puppet state like it was under the Shah.

This war, I think, has permanently essentially decided the conflict in favor of Iran, because Trump did what Brzezinski warned against 15 years ago, which is he said “we the Americans should not follow Israel into a war on Iran like a stupid mule.”

Today Trump is stupider than a mule. This is completely backfiring against all American geostrategic interests. And it has essentially given Iran the chance to step up and flex its muscles and show that it actually has essentially permanent control over the Strait of Hormuz and the massive resources that flow through it, which is the equivalent of a nuclear weapon. People have always asked themselves why Iran does not want nuclear weapons. It has a religious prohibition. But it also doesn’t need one, because it has the equivalent.

If Trump wanted an off-ramp, he actually had one after the Pakistan negotiations. All he had to do was accept the ceasefire and make it a real ceasefire. Instead, he went and did this so-called blockade of the blockade, which is doubly stupid because the problem, from the American point of view, is the fact that products are blocked. And so he just made them even more blocked. And that was another colossal blunder, almost as big as his original colossal blunder of getting into this war in the first place.

And so now China has absolutely no reason to even try to force Iran to do what Trump tells them to do. Why would China do that? China is actually weathering this situation better than America and its allies. They have a strategic reserve. They have diversified their energy. They have a lot of coal. They have all sorts of diverse energy supply chains, so they don’t need to worry themselves the way that the Americans and all of their allies, including their supposed anti-China allies in the region like Japan, and they hope Taiwan, South Korea, and so on.

Press TV: The global energy crisis, Dr. Barrett, the IEA, the International Energy Agency, said it is the worst energy crisis ever, unprecedented in history and about to get worse. How does this equate, from your perspective, to leverage that the U.S. president has or lack of moving forward or actually pressed into coming up with a definitive solution to this conflict? Or does he not care, simply?

Kevin Barrett: And Russia, China, and Iran, America’s adversaries, are all coming out of this much, much stronger. Russia is selling its energy for a much higher price. The sanctions have had to be dropped…. China has a huge strategic reserve and a diversified energy supply. And then Iran, as we’ve seen, has now got effective de facto permanent control of the Strait of Hormuz, taking it to a whole new level in the geopolitical world.

So Trump has got himself in a terrible fix and he lost his last chance for a graceful exit after the Pakistan negotiations. And now I think he’s going to learn in China that he’s going to be headed for an ungraceful exit.

Press TV: Kevin, for years the Israelis, and you mentioned them, so I want to bring it up now, and the impact this has had on regional resistance. They’ve been assassinating Palestinian and Lebanese resistance leaders and figures and commanders that they think are obstacles to Israel’s agenda for the region. And now the U.S. has joined Israel’s endeavor. Obviously, you alluded to that.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I think they made a huge miscalculation based on their arrogance. They imagine that if anybody threatened them the way that, let’s say, the resistance leaders are threatened, the way Iran’s leaders are threatened and so many have been assassinated, the way the Hezbollah leaders are threatened and assassinated, the way the Hamas leaders are threatened and assassinated, the Islamic Jihad leaders and so on, that they will have to capitulate because people like Trump and the people around him, the Western decision makers, are basically cowards.

But that’s not the way the resistance works. The resistance is made up of people who are spiritual, moral and have principles and are willing to risk and sacrifice their lives for what they believe in, including the liberation of their lands and the preservation of their dignity, their religion and their culture.

And this is something that’s incomprehensible apparently to a major segment of the Western leadership. They imagine that by wreaking havoc with terror attacks on resistance forces and leadership they can somehow terrorize the resistance into giving up.

By Kevin Barrett, for American Free Press

For decades, Israel and its American lobby have been getting away with murder. While pilfering US taxpayer money to fund their genocide of Palestine, the Israelis have exerted enormous pressure on American politicians to enable their crimes. Using the carrot of campaign money and the stick of assassination—Col. Lawrence Wilkerson is the latest high-profile figure to flat-out state that Netanyahu ordered the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and that Israel killed JFK—the Zionist cowboys have been riding herd on their American goyim cattle for more than a half-century, as Revilo P. Oliver explained in 1981.

But Israel’s dominance of the United States won’t last forever. Indeed, it may not survive another decade, as a seismic shift in public opinion is forcing politicians to reassess their enslavement to a genocidal foreign entity.

Since late 2023, when Israel began flattening Gaza, US public opinion has shifted radically against Israel and in favor of the Palestinians. Today, more than 60% of Americans view Israel unfavorably—a figure that would have been unthinkable just a decade ago. What’s more, the anti-Israel trend is strongest among young Americans. Today it isn’t just the vast majority of Democrats who view Israel unfavorably, but also a majority of under-50 Republicans. A recent Pew poll found that 57 percent of under-50 Republicans as well as 84 percent of Democrats view Israel negatively.

Congress, once remote-controlled by Israel, is becoming contested territory. On April 16 the Senate voted 59-40 against a bill that would have blocked the sale of military equipment to Israel. The vote “shows massive cracks in the political pillar that upholds the US-Israel alliance” according to Beth Miller of Jewish Voices for Peace.

75-year-old minority leader Chuck Shumer was one of the few Democrats to break ranks and cast a pro-Israel vote. Shumer’s loyalty to the genocidal Zionist entity elicited calls for his resignation from younger party members: “Mr Schumer, you are out of touch with the base of this party and with your own caucus. Step aside” tweeted Ro Khanna.

Republicans, unfortunately, voted unanimously to hand Israel bombs and bulldozers to commit genocide in Lebanon as well as Palestine, against Christians as well as Muslims. But a GOP revolt is brewing, led by Congressmen like Thomas Massie and former representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz, driven by a growing awareness of Israel’s misdeeds among under-50 Republicans.

Several important state and federal races feature “America first” challengers taking on Israel-owned incumbents. In Florida, gubernatorial candidate James Fishback has generated excitement among young voters by not only opposing Zionism, but also Jewish supremacism. Celebrity podcaster Dan Bilzerian has been saying even more un-woke things in his primary challenge to the rabidly pro-genocide congressman Randy Fine. Colorado gubernatorial candidate Joe Oltmann, like Bilzerian, is not afraid to use strong language in calling out Jewish supremacism. And in South Carolina, Tucker-Carlson-endorsed Paul Dans has stepped aside to allow Mark Lynch to lead an “America first” challenge to Senator Lindsey Graham, the suspected blackmailed pedophile who is widely viewed as the most disgusting emblem of Israel’s stranglehold on America. (Lynch, unfortunately, echoes made-in-Israel anti-Islam slogans, leading some observers to wonder whether he exemplifies “controlled opposition.”)

While the older generation of owned-by-Israel Republicans battles younger “antisemitic” challengers, anti-Israel Democrats are taking over their party. In Michigan, Congressional candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a Midwestern version of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, is running neck-and-neck with two Israel-funded candidates, while Donavan McKinney is challenging AIPAC-owned Rep. Shri Thanedar. Meanwhile, a growing stampede of Democratic incumbents have been joining the “Squad” (Tlaib, Omar, Lee, Jayapal, Casar, Pressley, Ramirez, Pocan) in their refusal to accept AIPAC money. Anti-AIPAC converts include Cory Booker (D-NJ), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Seth Moulton (D-MA), and Valerie Foushee (D-NC). Presumed presidential candidate Gavin Newsom, and even pro-Israel Jews Josh Shapiro and JB Pritzger, have shocked analysts by rejected AIPAC funding.

This anti-Israel shift in US politics is occurring despite the legacy media’s increasingly frenetic attempts to protect Netanyahu and company from their ongoing exercise in self-inflicted reputational damage. Indeed, mainstream media is falling under the control of increasingly radical Zionist extremists, as pro-genocide scribbler Bari Weiss takes over CBS, while her boss, the equally genocidal billionaire Larry Ellison, devours an ever-larger majority of mainstream media by merging Paramount with Warner Brothers, snapping up TikTok, and generally establishing Big Brother style dominance of the entire legacy media landscape.

But young people ignore legacy media. They love independent voices, whether ex-MSM figures like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens on the right, the Young Turks on the left, or Joe Rogan in the middle. These non-Zionist-owned voices are spearheading a media revolution that is helping Americans shake off decades of Israeli occupation.

For early access to articles like this and much more, you can subscribe to the print or digital editions of American Free Press.

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 False Flag Weekly News link

On October 26, 1972, Henry Kissinger momentously announced: “Peace is at hand.” According to Kissinger, North Vietnam and their Vietcong allies were about to see the light, lay down their weapons, and come to terms with the US and its South Vietnamese vassal.

Kissinger’s announcement made screaming front page headlines. It electrified the country, coming as it did seven years after US involvement in Vietnam had become a quagmire, and five years after American public opinion had turned decisively against the war. The American people were sick of the war, and Kissinger’s bombshell promised not just peace, but “peace with honor.”

Kissinger stunned the world with his peace announcement just twelve days before his boss, President Richard Nixon, sought re-election against antiwar challenger George McGovern. Though McGovern’s campaign had been hobbled not only by its own mistakes, but also by a long list of “dirty tricks” by pro-Nixon covert operations, Nixon’s campaign still faced the problem of the election potentially becoming a referendum on the war, which conceivably could allow McGovern to snatch victory from the jaws of looming defeat.

McGovern’s last-ditch hope was dashed by Kissinger’s “peace is at hand” bombshell. The media ate it up, and most Americans bought into Kissinger’s claim that the war was effectively over. Nixon won reelection in a landslide. Less than two months after Kissinger’s peace proclamation, the Nixon administration launched the Christmas carpet bombing of North Vietnam, dropping 20,000 tons of ordnance and killing thousands of civilians. Peace, least of all “with honor,” was apparently not quite at hand.

In January 1973, Kissinger referenced his “peace is at hand” remark of a few months earlier at a news conference, causing an eruption of cynical laughter among the assembled reporters. The real end of the war came more than two years later, on April 30, 1975, when Saigon finally fell. It was an abject US defeat, with no “honor” whatsoever. Indeed, the dishonor only mounted as Nixon, Kissinger, and their successors refused to pay Vietnam the promised war reparations, leading the Vietnamese to covertly hold on to about half of the US servicemen they had captured, virtually all of whom suffered and died in atrocious conditions as political and media elites averted their collective gaze.

Today, US president Donald Trump is waging an even more unpopular war, this time against Iran. Like Kissinger on the eve of the 1972 elections, Trump seeks political gain via bogus “peace is at hand” announcements. But Trump’s gains, unlike Nixon’s and Kissinger’s, may be (criminally) financial as well as political.

Last Wednesday, the Kobeissi Letter reported:

BREAKING: According to our analysis, ~$920 million worth of crude oil shorts were taken 70 minutes before an Axios report claimed the US and Iran were near a "14-point" deal to end the war.

At 3:40 AM ET today, nearly 10,000 contracts worth of crude oil shorts were taken without any major news.

This is equivalent to ~$920 million in notional value, an unusually large trade for 3:40 AM ET.

At 4:50 AM ET, just 70 minutes later, Axios reported that the US is "close" to a "memorandum of understanding" to end the Iran War.

By 7:00 AM ET, oil prices had fallen over -12% with these crude oil shorts gaining approximately +$125 million.

Minutes later, Iran launched the "Persian Gulf Strait Authority" and oil prices surged +8%.

What just happened?

Mainstream and quasi-alternative media, for once, picked up the story. Business Insider reported that “Online sleuths are raising more red flags around suspiciously timed Iran-war oil trades.” Common Dreams noted the “Epic Insider Trading.” The Daily Beast wryly noted that “Trump’s DOJ Is Investigating.” (Just like foxes are investigating alleged crimes at the henhouse.)

What galled many observers wasn’t just the brazen scope of the enormous insider bet that oil prices would briefly fall, but the maddening fact that this has been happening over and over again: Trump hysterically barks out bloodcurdling threats, oil prices rise, Trump says peace is at hand a few minutes or hours after insiders bet on falling prices, prices fall, insiders collect jackpot, Iran denies Trump’s BS claims, prices rise again, Trump utters new bloodcurdling threats, rinse-and-repeat.

The BBC was already onto it two weeks ago, a week before the latest billion-dollar bet:

According to the Daily Beast:

At least four traders made a combined $2.6 billion in the oil market by wagering that oil prices would drop shortly before Trump made major moves, according to trade data from the London Stock Exchange Group shared with ABC News.

The suspected insider trades happened on March 23, April 7, April 16, April 21, and again last Wednesday, May 6. All came on the eve of highly dubious “peace” announcements.

The SEC is supposed to be investigating these and other examples of apparent insider trading, a crime that can bring up to 20 years in federal prison. But according to Senator Elizabeth Warren of the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: “The SEC’s job is to make sure our markets are fair and honest. But nearly a year into running the agency, Chair (Paul) Atkins is unleashing a Golden Age of Fraud…the Trump SEC has gutted oversight and enforcement tools, even proposing to dismantle the database that helps the SEC catch insider trading, market manipulation, and other corporate crime.” Atkins, a Trump crime family crony, apparently sees his job as running interference for the Trumps’ accumulation of double-digit billions in personal enrichment via various criminal schemes.

Trump, who was supposedly elected to “drain the swamp,” has turned out to be the swampiest president in all of history. And though I’m not surprised—back in 2015 I was calling out Trump as a Kosher Nostra frontman initiated into organized crime (and depraved sexual practices involving political blackmail) by his mentor Roy Cohn from 1973 through 1986—it seems that a fair number of MAGA true believers are only now beginning to wake up and notice what kind of monster they voted for.

Shameless Chutzpah

What Trump learned from Roy Cohn can be summed up in two words: shameless chutzpah. While some may call that a pleonastic pleonasm (i.e. a repetitious redundancy), since chutzpah is by definition shameless, we Arabic speakers know that seemingly unnecessary repetition can be used for emphasis and intensification. Trump’s chutzpah takes shamelessness to the next level.

Chutzpah is a quintessentially Jewish thing. It’s a Yiddish word describing an attitude that is not only common in Jewish culture, but seen as more of a good thing than a bad thing. The self-made orphan with the gall to throw himself on the mercy of the court is not merely a target of ridicule; he is also admirable, especially if he somehow gets away with it. Jews teach their children about the positive side of chutzpah:

Roy Cohn, a mob lawyer and mob lieutenant (maybe even a colonel or general) perfectly embodied chutzpah. He rarely bothered to prepare for his court cases, because he always won them when his opponents learned that they were up against the mob and dropped out.

Trump was Cohn’s goy boy toy. It’s actually surprising that Cohn, who died of AIDS (which may actually be undiagnosed syphilis more often than not) never gave Trump the pox. Or did he? In this week’s False Flag Weekly News (watch it above) Dr. E. Michael Jones opines that Trump is indeed suffering the the symptoms of advancing syphilis, which can cause mood swings, memory loss, impaired judgment, confusion, delusions, mania, delirium, and sudden outbreaks of socially-inappropriate anger, hostility, and aggression. Take Trump’s Easter Sunday tweet:

Following that notorious tweet, Pope Leo uttered a saccharine pro-peace bromide or two, which triggered Trump, who once again lost all self-control and began tweeting out politically ill-advised attacks on the Pontiff, compounding the damage by posting a picture of himself as “Dr. Jesus” a week after Easter.

In Jewish culture, and among boldly amoral people in general, chutzpah is only good when you can get away with it. The self-made orphan who somehow convinces the naive goy judge to release him—perhaps by insisting that he is not just an orphan but a Holocaust survivor to boot, and that holding him responsible for his crime would be antisemitic—is exemplary; whereas a less talented or less lucky parricide, whose excuse is rejected and who is sentenced to hang for murdering his parents, becomes a cautionary tale and a figure of fun.

Trump’s increasing recklessness, whether caused by syphilis, advancing age, or too many diet cokes, is causing him to run the risk of getting caught. Did he really think he could get away with his lame attempt to regime-change Iran? Does he imagine his insanely erratic tweets will somehow strengthen his bargaining position and burnish his reputation? Does Don Jr. or Jared or whoever is making the insider bets really think they’ll escape scot-free in perpetuity?

The Trump regime’s out-of-control chutzpah, like that of the parricide orphan pleading with the judge for mercy, is begging for comeuppance. And Iran seems poised to deal it out with a vengeance.

Video link

Rumble link Bitchute link

The September 11 2001 attack on the US set off a series of wars that killed millions of people. 9/11 led directly to the ongoing genocides of Gaza and South Lebanon and the disastrous Israeli-US attack on Iran. Since an ever-growing segment of the population realizes that the Western media and political elites are lying outrageously about these events, it may be time to revisit the “the most successful and most perverse publicity stunt in the history of public relations” (as National Medal of Science winner Lynn Margulis called 9/11).

According to the 9/11 Commission, radical Muslim hijackers successfully commandeered four aircraft on September 11, 2001 and flew three of them into buildings, two of which miraculously imploded in apparent controlled demolitions officially blamed on plane crashes and fires. Among the many problems with that story: The flight paths of the three planes, reconstructed from FAA radar data and videos, is radically inconsistent with what human hijackers would and could have done. Instead, it overwhelmingly suggests that the planes were under automated control.

Those conclusions, apparent in broad outline to researchers 20 years ago, have been strongly reinforced by the new study “Flight simulator study points to automated control of 9/11 flights” just released by the International Center for 9/11 Justice. In this episode of the Truth Jihad podcast we discuss the study with its author, Dr. Piers Robinson. Dr. Robinson is “a political scientist and currently a co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, co-editor of Propaganda in Focus, and is Research Director and board member of the International Center for 9/11 Justice as well as co-editor of its flagship Journal of 9/11 Studies. He is also a member of Berlin Group21 and PANDA, convenor of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, and associated researcher with the Working Group on Propaganda and the 9/11 Global ‘War on Terror’. He has served on the boards of several academic journals.”\

—

Excerpt:

Kevin Barrett: …And of course, this is an interesting and somewhat controversial topic because it’s not absolutely clear how the perpetrators managed to create the illusion of hijackers seizing control of planes and crashing them into buildings.

Piers Robinson: Well, as you set out in your introduction, I work for International Center for 9/11 Justice now. I joined them two or three years back as part of my work on propaganda and deception. I think you’re familiar with my work on Syria and the OPCW. And when I joined the organization, we were very interested in trying to advance our understanding of the 9/11 events and build upon, as you pointed out, the very solid basis of evidence we have regarding the controlled demolition of the buildings in New York. And to try to expand our understanding into different aspects of this operation, the aviation side of things, for example. And so really that’s where the initial idea came from. We thought that there’s a lot of debate out there. We were initially working with some commercial pilots and we were trying to work through and obtain access to a simulator in order to insert them into this simulator and get them to carry out some of the maneuvers which we saw on 9/11.

And we made sure that we had a spread of pilots. Initially we had high-experienced pilots involved, three commercial pilots, two of whom were former military pilots, basically military fast-jet pilots. And then we had a group of lower-experienced pilots, private pilot license, who were closer to the kind of experience levels of the alleged hijackers on 9/11. So we had a good spread of expertise and we ran through the study in two stages.

Let’s just run through what we got the pilots to do. First of all, we were very interested in what was reported to be UA175, the aircraft which hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Now this is derived from NTSB radar data tracks as well as visual analysis of the flight route. What happens with the plane which hit the South Tower is that the plane comes in and it’s offset from the South Tower. You see this white line here going over City Hall. The plane at this point was heading towards City Hall and then (banked sharply towards the WTC). So we asked the pilots to try to replicate this maneuver.

We also looked at the Pentagon route, and this is from the NTSB report on the aircraft which purportedly flew into the Pentagon. At this point here, the plane is actually heading directly towards the Pentagon, and then it starts to turn off to the right, and then it enters this 330-degree descending turn to line up with the Pentagon.

And we also did this for the South Tower route. We placed them here over the starting point, probably about three minutes out from the South Tower, and we just said fly as you would in order to try to hit the South Tower….

Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees.