Truth Jihad Chronicle 1/19/21: "Listen to Iran"
Articles, broadcasts, interviews, sermons, and whatever else I've been up to
Greetings to all of you cheapskates out there who have been waiting for a free newsletter, as well as to my generous and esteemed paid subscribers. I’ve been cranking out so much content that I can barely keep track of it myself. But I’ll try my best to cover the last week or so’s worth, starting with the most recent. So…thank you for paying attention, and God bless each and every one of you! -Kevin
American Patriots Should Listen to Iran
Western Oligarch Media Speak with One Voice—And Conceal the Biggest Truths
On June 23 the Biden Administration’s Justice Department erased more than 30 websites. Most of them were Iranian or run by allies of Iran. The most famous, Press TV, is the only international broadcaster in English that questions the official story of 9/11.
By nuking Press TV’s main website www.PressTV.com, Biden ensured that all of the hundreds of thousands of stories published there would disappear and become broken links. Thanks to Biden, thousands of Press TV’s stories challenging the US-Israeli version of 9/11 have been erased from the historical record.
Israel driving region into religious war: Palestinian Authority
Spirited COVID Debate! Free speech in action! (FFWN with John Shuck)
Why Was World War II Waged?
(Great new article by NWO expert Mujahid Kamran)
Eric Walberg: "US Empire Is Declining, You Can Feel It in the Air"
All my radio shows:
This week’s Khutba (Islamic sermon): Re-Aligning with the Force: Is "may the Force be with you" Star Wars speak for "as-salaamu alaikum"?
And finally, a sneak preview of part of a forthcoming subscribers-only publication:
Interview on Cognitive Warfare
Interview questions for Dr. Kevin Barrett
Dear Mr. Barrett,
Below you could find a number of questions about the mentioned topic.
Thank you so much in advance.
What could the next generation of warfare look like?
I propose that the next generation of warfare will feature an even more pronounced shift toward deniable warfare, which, since much of it will not be seen by the public, could also be called invisible warfare. In the past, most warfare was obvious, undeniable, and visible to all interested parties. When the Romans sent legions to subjugate barbarians, both the Romans and the barbarians noticed. Though wars often featured deception, as explained by Sun Tzu among others, the fact of war, and most of the actual fighting, was obvious and undeniable.
Since World War II, there has been a shift toward deniable warfare. One factor driving this historic change is the proliferation of WMD in general, and the nuclear balance of terror in particular. If two heavily-WMD-armed adversaries, such as the US and Soviet Union, had gone to overt war, the destruction of most or all of human civilization would have been the likely result. So the US-NATO led capitalist bloc and their Communist adversaries could not openly declare war on each other. Yet in a sense the Cold War was, as its name implies, a war. Both parties to the conflict were dedicated to the eventual destruction of the enemy regime; it was essentially unfinished business from World War II which did not really end until 1989. But neither side could admit that what it was waging was, in fact, war. So rather than a head-on confrontation featuring all-out use of the most powerful weapons, both sides waged a veiled war using proxies, propaganda, and covert operations. The US-NATO side finally won, thanks to its proxy war in Afghanistan, its propaganda portraying life under capitalism as preferable to life under communism, and its covert operations against the Soviet economy, possibly including an alleged currency-swap scheme run by Leo Wanta that sucked the value out of the Russian ruble. (The fact that hardly anyone knows the name Leo Wanta, the man who is alleged to have played a leading role in the destruction of the Soviet Union, shows the degree to which warfare had already become covert and deniable by the 1980s.)
Today we are in the middle of Deniable World War III. Decades ago experts predicted that future wars would be fought deniably with biological weapons, and that prediction appears to have come true, thanks to the American neoconservatives who launched the COVID-19 pandemic by attacking China and Iran with a made-in-the-lab superflu, as outlined by Ron Unz. To what extent the catastrophic blowback may have been anticipated by the culprits is of course an open question.
How do you explain the relationship between cognitive warfare and hybrid warfare?
The term hybrid warfare refers to the kind of warfare that emerges when the warmongers see the advantages of keeping their wars deniable. Instead of relying on conventional (overt) warfare as in the past, those waging wars conspire to create irregular wars that serve their objectives, such as the conflicts with “radical Islamic groups” (actually NATO proxies) in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Alongside the actual fighting, the warmongers rely heavily on propaganda, supplemented by covert operations including cyberwarfare, unattributed assassinations, attempts to influence elections, lawfare (misusing legal systems as weapons of war), and so on.
Cognitive warfare is essentially the psy-op component of hybrid warfare; it is just a fancy new name for what used to be called “propaganda.” But the tools of propaganda have evolved considerably during the past few decades, which may be why the warmongers think a fancy new name is justified. Today, instead of targeting entire populations through newsreels, Voice of America broadcasts, and US-Zionist controlled mainstream media content, the evolution of social media has made it possible to target different subsets of populations with tailored messages designed to elicit the thoughts and behaviors desired by the propagandists.
How do you define cognitive warfare?
What are cognitive warfare’s characteristics?
Today’s “cognitive warfare” differs from yesterday’s “propaganda” mainly in that it is waged primarily on the internet rather than in the legacy media. But as Marshall McLuhan famously noted, “the medium is the message.” What he meant is that communication media are not neutral. Instead, they shape and determine the content of messages they carry. Pre-internet mass media, for example, were all one-to-many systems. A single content creator, or a single team of creators with a particular point of view (namely, that of their bosses) would create and mass-produce a message destined for hundreds of thousands or millions of people. All one-to-many communication systems, whether print (newspapers, magazines, books) or audio-visual (radio, newsreels, movies, television) tended to unite the mass audience by feeding every one of the millions of information consumers exactly the same message, without allowing the audience to talk back.
The internet is a many-to-many communication system. Rather than bringing millions of people together to hear the same message (Hitler’s radio speeches, FDR’s fireside chats, the TV networks’ and New York Times’ coverage of JFK’s assassination) it allows those millions to craft their own messages and talk back to the propagandists—and to each other. The result has been a fragmentation of the political spectrum into “bubbles” each representing different and often incommensurate viewpoints.
So “cognitive warfare” specialists (propagandists in the internet age) find themselves with the unenviable task of herding cats, at least when they are trying to unite populations behind a particular viewpoint or in pursuit of a particular objective. But though herding cats is difficult, unherding them (terrorizing them into fighting each other or scattering) is not so difficult. So due to the many-to-many nature of the internet, the cognitive warriors tend to have more success destabilizing adversaries by sowing chaos, confusion, polarization, and dissension than in promoting desired coherent viewpoints in service to social stability. This kind of cognitive warfare in service to destabilization mirrors what the FBI’s Cointelpro team did to antiwar activists and Black Panthers in the 1960s: They infiltrated targeted groups, incited paranoia and infighting, and secretly made those groups self-destruct. Today, the CIA and its friends are trying to do the same thing to adversaries like Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, and China.
Which countries have been more successful in cognitive warfare? Why?
The rulers of the Anglo-Zionist Empire claim that Russia is the world leader in cognitive warfare. They love to blame the Russians for the perceived ills of American society. Joe Biden tells us that the biggest threat to America is white supremacism and other forms of so-called right-wing extremism. Biden’s handlers, the kingpins of the Empire, blame Russia for the rise of Trump and the alleged extremism of his followers.
The blame-Russia narrative grossly exaggerates Russia’s role in the political fragmentation and polarization of the United States. The Russian component of US social media content is minuscule. Admittedly Russia, through outlets like RT and Sputnik, has succeeded in adding a more pro-Russian point of view to the American mix, while amplifying the voices of domestic critics of empire to a certain extent. But just as Al Gore’s boast that he created the internet was like a rooster taking credit for the dawn, so too would be Russia’s taking credit for the internet-driven fragmentation and polarization of America.
The US, in fact, has been much more aggressive than Russia in targeting perceived enemies with cognitive warfare destabilization campaigns. Daesh, for example, was created by Anglo-Zionists as a tool of hybrid warfare against Iraq, Syria, Iran, and the Islamic Ummah in general. And the Ukro-Nazi movement that overthrew Yanukovich in 2014 was likewise an Anglo-Zionist creation. So, of course, is the fake “presidency in exile” of Venezuelan pretender Juan Guaido. It is no secret that much of what passes for the “domestic opposition” in places like Syria, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Taiwan is really driven by the CIA and its friendly NGOs. So the Anglo-Zionists have probably had the most successes with cognitive warfare, even though they have had many failures as well, simply because they are waging it so universally and unrelentingly… (full interview will be published soon at https://kevinbarrett.substack.com/ for subscribers only).