Truth Jihad Radio

Rumble link Bitchute link TruthJihad link

Press TV

The Knesset elections for the Israeli regime are over.

The first of its kind in three years, put off while the Zionist war machine was busy in its extermination campaign against the Gaza Strip’s civilians. With most votes counted, no candidate has secured a 61-seat majority needed to rule, and now it’s down to Benjamin Netanyahu and Gadi Eisenkot and their parties, the Likud and Yashar respectively. Charlotte Kates, international coordinator, Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, from Beirut, and Kevin Barrett, editor, Al-Andalus Tribune, from Saidia, Morocco, are tonight’s guests.

Transcript

Press TV: Hello everyone and welcome. The Knesset elections for the Israeli regime are over. First of its kind in three years, put off while the Zionist war machine was busying its extermination campaign of the Gaza Strip’s civilian population and the annihilation of its infrastructure. With most votes counted, no candidate has secured a 61-seat majority needed to govern.

And now it’s down to Benjamin Netanyahu and Gadi Eisenkot and their parties, the Likud and Yashar, respectively. The election has been marred, though, with dirt and mudslinging and allegations of sedition, incompetence and corruption between candidates, and marked by uncertainty…

Let’s delve into exactly which candidate and party supports a path toward peace with Palestinians, will work to end genocide, settlement expansion, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, occupy less, withdraw more, live and let live, and support the two-state solution. In other words, how much does the Zionist election really matter? Let’s get into it. And now for our guests.

Joining us is Charlotte Kates, International Coordinator at the Asamidun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network from Beirut. And Dr. Kevin Barrett, editor at Al-Andalus Tribune, joining us from Saidia, Morocco. Hello to both of you and welcome to the program. Nice to have you both. I guess Dr. Barrett, we’ll start with you, sir. Your opening thoughts on the occupying regime’s Knesset election and how this nasty rhetoric between candidates, why they’ve gotten so nasty, and why it seems some very deep disdain, some deep divisions, are being unearthed, but ultimately it seems like nothing is really going to change.

Kevin Barrett: Well, these are really nasty people. Psychopathic leadership, which is evident in a lot of places, especially the United States recently, has always been off-the-charts in occupied Palestine. For whatever reason, the Zionist leadership has always consisted of gangsters. You can go back and read Thomas Suarez’s book, State of Terror, about how Zionist terror created the State of Israel. These people were thugs, criminals, mafiosi types who didn’t hesitate to slaughter not just the British and obviously the Arabs, but their own people as well. And so the descendants of these criminal terror gangs became the leadership of the Zionist entity. And that’s what we still have.

We have these two self-proclaimed Zionist parties. And what that means is that they’re two genocide parties. On the one hand, we have Netanyahu who presided over this just completely insane, brutal, bloody genocide of Gaza. And that’s just the latest of the crimes that he’s committed.

And then Eisenkot is the guy who gave us the Dahia Doctrine, which is the genocide doctrine of “disproportionate response.” In other words, if there’s any kind of attack or even a false flag attack, that’s your excuse to commit genocide and to exterminate Amalek, as their Bible tells them: Kill every man, woman, child, animal, even the pets, even the domestic animals.

So this is a really sick society. And the vast majority of Israeli Jews voted for one or another of these pro-genocide parties. At least 95% of Israeli Jews voted for genocide.

The Arabs, many of them, didn’t, but they’re caught up in this genocide project. So the answer to that question that you posed earlier, “does this election in occupied Palestine really matter?” is: “Not in the sense that it could possibly change the evil nature of the leadership in Tel Aviv.”

But what could happen is that as a result of this outcome, where both sides are snarling at each other and insulting each other and vying for power, and both are refusing to make a majority by bringing in the Arab parties, then it’s a gridlock. And that gridlock could set the stage for civil war, or for other forms of the continued falling apart and implosion of the evil genocidal Zionist entity. And so I guess from that standpoint, it’s not the worst of outcomes. But they’re just going down and bringing the whole region with them, whatever they do, whoever’s in power.

It’s a very, very sad situation, and it’s disgusting to watch this being covered by Western media as if it’s a meaningful election in a normal democratic society.

Press TV: Thank you there, Dr. Barrett. And Charlotte Kates, welcome to the conversation. Thanks for your patience. Now, Charlotte, we mentioned the deep disdain earlier. Now, I want to just read a couple of things that Eisenkot said about Netanyahu. He called him a pathological liar, in Hebrew and English, a few times.

He blamed him for the October 7th “security failure.” He said that Netanyahu leads blindly, arrogantly, and irresponsibly, and he should have resigned long ago. He prolongs wars for political survival. He says that he will never serve under Netanyahu in a coalition.

And Netanyahu calls Eisenkot an Israeli sellout, that he’s opposed major military operations in Gaza, including into southern Gaza, the seizure of the Philadelphia Corridor in central Gaza, and expanded operations against Hezbollah. He says his policies would have left Hamas and Hezbollah more powerful. And at one point Netanyahu even said, “It’s me and Trump against Eisenkot and Abbas.”

Now, my question to you: There’s a lot of mudslinging back and forth. Guess what neither of them talk about? It’s policy. Because Eisenkot never really condemned the genocide in Gaza, the weaponization of food, fuel, and a shelter against Palestinians, right? He just picked out a couple military operations to criticize, not the overall barbarity of what’s taken place in Gaza.

Charlotte Kates: Eisenkot’s position is that the military campaign carried out by the Netanyahu government was insufficiently effective in eliminating Palestinian resistance. Gadi Eisenkot is the founder of what has been called the Dahia Doctrine: the official Zionist military doctrine of destroying and targeting civilian infrastructure, facilities, and people in order to try to sap the will of an occupied population to resist colonization and oppression.

Gadi Eisenkot was the commander of the Zionist Army’s attacks on the Great March of Return in Palestine and the sniping, the killing, and the shooting off of the legs of a whole generation of Palestinian youth in Gaza. Gadi Eisenkot and Benjamin Netanyhau are war criminals. They simply, at times, disagree on the most effective way to carry out the the genocide of Palestinians, because Eisenkot believes that Netanyahu’s tactics, and particularly the kind of showiness and the rhetorical gestures that accompany the policy of genocide, that are practiced by people like Itzmar Ben-Gvir and Bezalal Smotrich are actually inconvenient and damaging to the international reputation of the Zionist project. Gaddy Eisenkot wants to project a professional image, whereas Ben-Gvir wants to project an image of sort of thugism and paramilitaries.

The policy is the same. The mechanism of carrying it out is slightly different. But the underlying ideology, the underlying Zionist project, which is racist and genocidal in its nature, and is committed to expansion, to colonization, to the elimination by all means of as many Palestinians as possible, and to the constant expansion of the Zionist entity, they are agreed on this.

Eisenkot has been running on a platform of saying that Netanyahu has failed to eliminate Hamas, and he pledges to do it within 18 months. He is unsatisfied with the conduct of the genocide in Gaza and would like to start more of it.

Now, so you don’t really have a disagreement. You have basically a debate over the internal management of the colony, and a growing crisis about the internal management of the colony. For example, who is required to bear the burden of participating in the wars and in the genocide, who has to bear the burden of being killed by the resistance when they go and attack and invade and carry out genocide against people in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Iran, and anywhere else in the region.

I mean, Eisenkot, several of his own children were killed by the resistance as they were acting as invading and occupying forces in Gaza. And so the issue of, for example, the recruitment of the ultra-Orthodox into the army has become a huge internal domestic conflict within the Zionist entity, about how it understands itself and who bears the burden of the state ands ociety. But the fact is that the conduct of the genocide, the exclusion of Palestinians, the destruction of Palestinian life—this is simply taken for granted by all of the major parties within the Zionist system.

Press TV: And how crazy is that, Dr. Barrett, that we’re not talking about who will help secure peace and an end to the genocide in Gaza, but we’re talking about the different kinds of genocide, really like the term shades of gray, shades of genocide, which person’s approach is different and why?

Kevin Barrett: The other guest is exactly right. This is a debate really between two wings of the pro-genocide party, which is the only meaningful Zionist party. Neither one is even interested in slowing down the genocide or doing anything to lessen it. Both of them just want to do it more effectively. Netanyahu does it by showboating and bringing these crazy extremist ministers into his cabinet and doing this theatrical cruelty, sort of like Trump. And then on the other side, Eisenkot is just trying to disguise the reality with a more professional kind of demeanor. And I think the international Zionist community probably leans towards, at this point, being ready to retire Netanyahu and prefer Eisenkot. Because they’re taking a huge hit, public relations-wise, all over the world, as the world is waking up to the reality of what’s really going on in occupied Palestine, and the fact that these are complete genocidal monsters.

I mean, the whole society, basically. There are some decent Israelis, but they’re a minuscule minority. All the polls show that they can’t really be much more than about 5 percent (of Israeli Jews). The rest are psychotic, genocidal, drooling lunatics. And so that’s what their election is. It’s a circus. And these rabid freaks running both of the different sides of the circus, the different freak shows, are vying with each other and spewing vitriol at each other as they fight to see who can frame themselves as the most effective leader of the genocide. So that’s really what we’re dealing with here.

And again, the world is waking up. The younger people, especially, are waking up all over the world, and here in the United States. Actually, I’m in Morocco, but over there where I used to be in the United States, the younger people are definitely starting to notice what’s really going on. It’s becoming a major issue.

That’s why I believe the world Zionist community would have preferred an Eisenkot victory. Now they’re stuck with a deadlock. And that means maybe another election in March. Meanwhile, months of chaos. During those months, we wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the Zionist entity use its Epstein leverage over Trump to drag the Americans back into another round of war crimes in Iran and then getting their tails whipped by the Iranians militarily. And so it’s just more of the same. And anybody who thinks this election was going to actually fix anything or solve anything or change anything is out of their mind.

Press TV: Thank you there. And Charlotte, so what changes in the occupied West Bank (could happen) with the Yashar party or a new prime minister? We know that Eisenkot has criticized Netanyahu for giving authority to far-right ministers. That’s caused a lot of escalation and provocation in the occupied West Bank. We know he’s even criticized them for settler attacks.

But once he and his party get into power, what changes? When it comes to settlement expansion, daily raids on communities, detentions, homes, farms, and property demolitions and destruction, and the record settler violence that he’s criticized, does any of it change with Eisenkot in the occupied West Bank?

Charlotte Kates: Well, once again, what we’re talking about is this image of professionalism, the professional Zionist military versus the sort of thuggish settlers promoted by Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, etc. So if we think about the settlers, not just as people who are stealing the land and resources of Palestinians, but essentially as a form of paramilitary gang…Paramilitary gangs are supposed to be essentially disciplined in how they carry out their attacks on the population. And the settlers are not. They constantly require the military to come and get them out of various situations that they created. And, of course, the price is paid by Palestinians who are arrested and shot and killed by both settlers and Zionist soldiers, because settlers were engaging in deliberately provocative behavior. So it’s the opposite of professional management of the occupation. Also, Eisenkot is very concerned about the international isolation of the Zionist entity. And the settlers are the visible ugly face of Zionism. They are very openly racist in what they say. They are very openly declaring that they’re going to steal land. There is that famous quote: “If I don’t steal it, someone else is gonna steal it.”

This is something that is repulsive to the vast majority of the people of the world. And it even becomes difficult for governments like the European Union governments, which are absolutely full-on supporters and allies of the Zionist regime who, despite whatever statements they have issued, have not once stopped the flow of weaponry and diplomatic and political cover that is given to the Zionist entity, let alone the persecution of people who speak out for Palestine within Europe. Even they are not able to countenance the appearance of these settlers, the appearance of Ben-Gvir, etc.

The conditions within Zionist prisons have been awful for decades. Torture has been institutionalized in Zionist jails since the inception of the Zionist regime. But Ben-Gavir has made the torture of Palestinian prisoners in Zionist jails a centerpiece of his election campaign, and has gone into the prisons in order to promote people to vote for him.

So it’s this kind of very naked and blatant self-aggrandizing form of thuggery that doesn’t fit into the example of the kind of technologized, AI-driven, genocidal war machine that Eisenkot wants to function smoothly. Smotrich, Ben-Givir, Netanyahu, they represent the settlers paramilitaries, whereas Eisenkot comes from a military background. He represents the war establishment of the Zionist entity. So in many ways, Netanyahu and his coalition have a greater level of immediate danger because they are absolutely carrying out all forms of genocidal violence In Gaza, in the West Bank, throughout occupied Palestine, as quickly as possible. And they are very dangerous, not just to Palestine, but to all the people of the region, in Syria, in Lebanon, in Iran, in Yemen. But Eisenkot can also be more dangerous in the long term because he, in many ways, represents a more strategic approach to achieving the same goals.

Press TV: That’s wild. Do you know what that reminds me of, Dr. Barrett, when Charlotte was saying that? The Republicans and Democrats on immigration: the Democrats lambast the Republicans for demonizing immigrants and having a vast deportation policy. They get in power. What do they do? They have more deportations. They just do it more quietly and off camera than the Republicans do. But I want to ask you about…let’s take a few, a step a few kilometers outside of occupied territories. Isenkot, if he does come to power…do we see any changes in Lebanon, in Syria, with Iran?

Kevin Barrett: Well, I don’t think he’s going to come to power because he would have to bring the Arab parties into the cabinet with him. And being a rabidly genocidal Zionist, and given the tradition that these genocidal Zionist parties never ever make a coalition with the Arab parties to govern, I doubt that will happen. If it did, it would be interesting.

But still, I think that the other guest, again, is absolutely right that, ultimately, Eisenkot is probably more dangerous in terms of the Zionist entity being able to normalize its reputation enough to actually make strategic gains and hold them. It will be better able to do that if they can make a show of scapegoating Netanyahu for the excesses of the Gaza genocide while they continue to carry it out— and actually carry it out even more effectively, which is what Eisenkot has been calling for.

Right now we’re seeing the region recognizing that Israel is the problem. We’re seeing the Saudis losing to Yemen, having to run to negotiate in Iran alongside the Pakistanis and the Turks to try to come up with a regional security architecture that recognizes ultimately that the real threat to the region is the Zionist entity and its expansionism. “Greater Israel” includes parts of Saudi Arabia!

And so the region is changing, the world is changing, and Netanyahu is actually leading the charge in a way by being such a blatantly evil clown that the whole world hates. He has discredited the Zionist project, and now even these compliant puppet Western leaders of the Arab Gulf sheikdoms can no longer pretend be “normalizing.”

But if Eisenkot takes over, maybe they could. Who knows? And so that’s why, again, this election isn’t really going to change anything except for the style. But maybe the change of style will make a difference. It could be that as these two characters fight over the next few months, my prediction is that there will have to be another election in March, that that will further tarnish the Zionist entity’s image, and its cohesion—its internal cohesion. The best thing that we could hope for would be a civil war breaking out the Zionist entity that completely brings it down and liberates Palestine.

Press TV: Thank you. And Charlotte, these voters, the ones that came out and voted…how many of them do you think really want an equitable, fair, just, and internationally law-abiding governing coalition in Tel Aviv, that it matters to them, de-escalation matters to them, de-escalation of tensions with Palestinians and others in the region, really matters to them? Because it’s not evident in the vote, is it?

Charlotte Kates: When you look at the array of options that are presented, what we’ve seen time and time again is that the Zionist entity is an artificially constructed colonial society that is built on the premise of a racist ideology, which is Zionism. It’s been artificially implanted in the region on stolen Palestinian land. So it does not operate as a normal society, as a normal state, as a normal entity. It operates as a garrison that is funded and armed by Western imperialist powers, initially the British and currently primarily the United States, but also all of the other Western imperialist powers.

And so it does not function in the sense that you might think— a society debating which path it wants to follow for economic development or social change. Instead, its mission is always focused on expanding its military control and expanding its technological control over the greatest amount of land and excluding the greatest number of Arabs and Palestinians from their land. And so this nature of the Zionist entity means that the elections are essentially constantly just a series of internal crises of this project and the contradictions within the project and how they play out. But they don’t change the nature of the project itself.

Now, of course, you also have the Palestinian parties, what are called the Arab parties, which every single one of the Zionist Parties absolutely declares that they refuse to work with. But what it also reflects is that these parties actually have, despite their large voting percentages in these elections, no real power or authority. Instead, their authority is limited to choosing the Zionist in control of the Palestinian population.

Press TV: Thanks, Charlotte. And Dr. Barrett, we only have 50 seconds left. I really wanted to get your take on that exact question. What did we learn, if anything, from the Israeli voter and the way they voted in this election?

Kevin Barrett: Well, they’re still voting for genocide. And just as all the polls have shown that they were supporting the genocide of Gaza, including the deliberate murder of tens of thousands of innocent women and children, deliberately targeting noncombatants based on bogus AI algorithms, saying that there’s some Hamas person probably somewhere in the neighborhood, so let’s blow up the whole neighborhood: They’re all voting for that. They’re voting for the world’s first livestream genocide. Pretty much all of them. Maybe 95% of Israeli Jews are voting for genocide. We have to face that. We have to face the fact that this is not a normal country. It is, as Charlotte said, a genocidal settler colonial entity that’s been artificially imposed on the region as a project of theft and displacement and mass murder and again ultimately genocide, which is what we’ve been seeing in Gaza. So it’s a sad, sad spectacle to watch 95% of that population voting for this most extreme form of cruel and sadistic genocide.

But that’s what they just did.

Press TV: I’d like to thank you both and wish you both well. Thank you for being with us on the program. Charlotte Kates joining us out of Beirut and Dr. Kevin Barrett joining us out of Sadia, Morocco. This brings us to another conclusion of your Press TV Spotlight program. Thank you for tuning in and bye-bye for now.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link

Helen Buyniski and I discussed Trump’s “gay dementia” beginning around the 53 minute mark in the video above. -KB

The president of the United States is a flaming, capering, simpering f****t. The apostles of diversity grovel at his feet, while the conservative Christian homophobes retch every time they look at him. Wait a minute—it’s actually the other way around!

How did one of the world’s most decadent and depraved homosexuals fool the evangelicals into not only voting for him, but lining up, cult-like, behind him? And why don’t the worshippers of all things gay, decadent, depraved, and/or perverted bow down in abject adoration of America’s first blatantly homosexual president?

Donald J. Trump is like a character out of an early John Waters movie. Unlike most of those people, however, he’s a pretty good actor. Despite his underlying layer of swishiness, his irrepressible capering and simpering, and his recent semi-senile blurt-outs about lusting for men’s private parts, Trump enjoys a Rock Hudson-ish ability to play the lady-killer. And it isn’t just acting. Trump is quite capable of overcompensating for his sadomasochistic homosexuality—his dominant character trait, cultivated or imposed by his mentor Roy Cohn—by aggressively bedding, or even sadistically raping, women and girls.

Some people think it’s weird that Trump has been drooling and swooning over men’s rock-hard asses or outsized male members. But what’s really weird is that they should think it’s weird. He’s a f****t, dude!

Video link

Video link

Video link

If you don’t believe me, and can’t see what’s plainly in front of your face, listen to my esteemed colleague Linh Dinh:

A headline from The Telegraph on 10/21/26, “Trump captivated by Republican senator’s ‘muscular backside.’” Benedict Smith, “President praises Jon Husted’s ‘ass’ at North Carolina rally—his latest in a plethora of ‘man-musing’ moments.” Anyone who’s paid attention knows Trump goes both ways, and not just because he’s enchanted by Arnold Palmer’s prick and jerked off a microphone. An email from the Epstein files strongly suggests he sucked Bill Clinton. On 9/11, Trump claimed he was rescued by “two firemen—big, strong guys—and I’m not the smallest guy in the world—they grabbed me under the arms, said, ‘Gotta get out of here.’ And they literally lifted me up. This is not easy to do. I’m big. They lifted me up and they started running with me.” So gay, such a damsel in distress fantasy. Trump’s big, you see, but those firemen were even bigger and stronger. Flanked by two big, strong guys, Trump was delivered to safety, all sweaty and out of breath.

Yo Donald, did you kiss each in his muscular ass to say thank you, before moving to the front?

Listen, Trump can be as gay as he wants, there’s no crime in that, unlike his raping trafficked girls or even eating them. This whiny pussy posing as an alpha male, Rambo and Captain Kilgore, though, hasn’t just become farcical, but dangerous for the entire world. To prove he’s so manly, Trump may blow up the entire world. His suppressed queerness is at the core of his belligerence, especially towards women.

As a sixth-rate comedian, Trump’s timing is awful, for to go on about muscular male asses just days before the mid-terms isn’t the best idea. Dragged by Trump, MAGA has tumbled out of that stinking closet as a child raping, cock sucking cult. Trump, then, isn’t just “America’s first Jewish president,” as claimed by Mark Levin at a White House Hanukkah celebration, but her first bisexual commander-in-chief. At that gay gala, Trump said of Levine, “Hot as can be on radio […] He’s so big. Right, Mark? Come on over. And, by the way—come here. Get over here.” Many have also noticed how Trump always swoons around the biggest, most powerful men, such as Xi Jinping or Putin, though the latter is only 5-5 or so. Since Pete Hegseth is a (most dangerous) joke as head of Trump’s Department of War, he could only have been chosen for his looks. Those tatts on Pete’s bare chest must have captivated Donny. Also, Trump’s garish Mar-a-Lago and under construction ballroom make the most sense if seen from a drag queen perspective. When finished, Trump can finally come out as RuPaul in orange makeup.

At this point Mr. Tolerance-and-Diversity steps up to the mic and says, “Hey, are you guys, like, homophobic or something?” So let me briefly explain why having a simpering homosexual president who overcompensates by raping little girls (and molesting and raping grown women, if we are to believe the 28 who have come forward) is not such a great idea.

Remedial Anthropology for Depraved Moderns

Civilized society is built on channeling sexuality into marriage, the institution upon which family structures rest. Extended family trees, anthropologists know, are the skeletons of social and political order. That’s why the first thing an anthropologist does when he meets a far-flung tribe is to catalogue their kinship structure.

Men who submit to marriage (whether monogamous or, much more commonly, polygamous) and its restrictions on sexuality become patriarchs—fathers who govern. And patriarchy is good. Fathers are men who have been tamed or domesticated to use their strength and power to protect those weaker than themselves, starting with women and children.

Men who are not fathers have a very strong tendency to “rape and pillage”—that is, to use their power for selfish gratification. Whether they are out-and-out rapists—as most men become in wartime, given the opportunity—or promiscuous homosexuals spreading venereal diseases, men who have not been tamed by heterosexual marriage are bad news.

Presidents and similar “top leaders” are symbolic patriarchs. George Washington, we are told, was “the father of his country,” meaning he protected it wisely and responsibly. Historians say he was faithful to Martha during their 40-year marriage, though British propagandists tried to paint him as promiscuous, and rumors of dalliances with slaves are still debated.

In the past, Americans wanted a responsible father figure at the top of their male pack hierarchy. Today, they are presided over by a sick, depraved pervert, and the most neurotic segment of the population—the evangelicals—see him as the Second Coming…an imposture that he blasphemously encourages:

That Americans are putting up with this degenerate scam artist as their leader, while almost a third of the country blasphemously worships him, tells you everything you need to know about the US empire’s ongoing collapse into its own putrid feces.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link

Laurent Guyénot’s From Yahweh to Zion powerfully argues that Judaism has been a destructive force throughout its 2500-year existence. Now he’s back with another book-length argument upsetting conventional wisdom, this time targeting Christianity.

What the Christians Did to the Romans: A critical history of the Christianization argues that traditional accounts of the Christianization of the Roman Empire amount to victors’ history. The real story, he says, is far less flattering to Christianity. The truth, Guyénot suggests, has only been emerging since the second half of the twentieth century, when “a generation of historians produced what may be called a ‘revisionist’ perspective on the religious transformation of Late Antiquity. The two most influential pioneers are Ramsay MacMullen and Peter Brown.”

Guyénot’s criticism targets the institutional dogmas of Christianity, which were often remarkably intolerant and obscurantist, and their destructive effects on Western society, but not the message of Jesus as preserved in the Gospels.

Can the religion of Christianity survive the exposure of its founding myths and regain its position as the ideological and spiritual foundation of the West? Or will the West inevitably continue its trajectory towards post-Christianity, and either implode in nihilism or somehow return to the pre-Christian “religion of philosophy” as Guyénot would prefer?

Toward the end of the interview, I argue for an Islamic alternative, which could oversee a synthesis of monotheism and philosophy.

Laurent Guyénot’s new article, Why Do They Hate Us? Is it about Christ, Whiteness, or Rome? touches on some of the same issues, and argues that Jewish hatred for white Christians and post-Christians is more about Rome than about whiteness or Christianity.

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

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link

I just finished an interview with Press TV about ICE agents breaking a U.S. citizen’s arm in Long Beach, California. The interviewer asked me whether this might be justified, or whether ICE was out of control.

They’re out of control. This is a symptom of the authoritarianism that has exploded in the United States and essentially put an end to the Democratic Republic that I was born into, certainly in its late and decadent phase, about 65 years ago. This ICE brutality against random people, communities, based on their ethnicity, is something that nobody could have imagined just a few years ago.

They’re not getting warrants and arresting people that they have probable cause to believe are violating an American law. According to the Constitution that is what they have to do. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution insists that before anyone can be arrested and charged, there has to be a warrant signed by a judge that there’s probable cause to believe that they committed a crime. But what these ICE agents are doing is descending on whole communities and just randomly brutalizing ,people and then rounding them up and holding them, radioing in their ID to find out whether they might or might not be, quote unquote, illegal aliens. And many of them aren’t.

And so in the process, they end up attacking, brutalizing, and in this case, breaking the arm of a guy who’s a US citizen. And why they chose to attack him…it’s not clear whether they ran over him with their car while he was on his bicycle first and then jumped on him and whether his arm was broken in an auto attack.

I think this is being done not only to provide sadistic publicity for Trump’s base, but also as an attempt to normalize brutal political repression.

They’re going to turn this against other movements, not just against people of Hispanic descent. They’re going to turn this against people who are against wars, people who want the Epstein Files released—we just saw some Trump fan goons beating up a woman who had a “release the Epstein Files” t-shirt at a Trump rally.

We’re going to see them going after all sorts of people, including right-wingers. If the next administration is Democratic, they may use this same kind of methodology to hunt down their political enemies, maybe the very Trump supporters who are supporting this brutality right now.

So this is a symptom of the United States losing its Constitutional democratic republic and descending into brutal, psychopathic authoritarianism.

Question: Is immigration really a problem?

Yeah, well, there’s a debate over immigration in the United States. And what is completely left out of that debate is the fact that the natural state of affairs in this debate is for ordinary working people to support more immigration restrictions, to bring wages up, and for the big corporations and the wealthy, who enjoy having these illegal immigrants that they can enslave as their sex slaves, their maids, their butlers, their gardeners, vegetable pickers for huge multinational corporations—these wealthy predatory people actually want the illegal immigration.

Normally, the left wing should be supporting reducing immigration. And then the right-wing capitalist pig elite, of course, wants open borders. But they don’t want you to know that. And so they’ve basically got the propaganda apparatus confusing everybody, making it a racial issue and miscasting the whole issue, and then using it as an excuse to bring in brutal authoritarianism.

Honestly, I think that the American working people would be better off with more restricted immigration. But they certainly are not better off with these ICE thugs running around randomly attacking people in the United States.

The American people should see that this situation has been created by the Epstein class elite of psychopathic oligarch billionaires who profit from the open borders. The first step is not to send goons after Hispanic people in the streets, but to overthrow the Epstein-class regime that has created this problem in the first place.

If you want to learn more about where I live—Saidia, Morocco—check out my Italo Calvino pastiche: “Saidia as Sophronia: The Government is Gone, but the Roller Coaster Remains.”

And if you want to support my brand of non-mainstream writing and broadcasting, which has been massively shadowbanned and deplatformed, please note that Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link TruthJihad link

The name “Saudi” Arabia was invented by a mid-level British bureaucrat circa 1915. But if you ask Gemini for the details, it will deny the claim. Instead, it will trumpet the official myth that King Abdulaziz named the country after himself, Trump-style, in 1932. (Who doubts that after Trump names all the oceans after himself, and grifts his way to owning most of his country’s wealth, he will rename his bankrupt nation “Trumpy America”?)

If you prod it long enough, Gemini will eventually discover The Creation of Saudi Arabia: Ibn Saud and British Imperial Policy, 1914–1927 by Dr. Askar H. Al-Enazy. Contradicting its earlier statements insisting that it’s just a social-media-driven conspiracy theory, Gemini admits:

While Abdulaziz and his council legally enacted the royal decree renaming the country in 1932, British imperial files prove that mid-level colonial bureaucrats had already invented and formalized "Saudi Arabia" as a geopolitical descriptor in Western diplomacy decades prior.

So it’s true: “Saudi” Arabia was invented and named by British bureaucrats. The Arabs themselves were just bit players in a colonial drama.

The Ibn Saud clan was always just a gang of unusually nasty bedouins from the Najd desert who made their living robbing and killing pilgrims on their way to and from Mecca. In 1744, Muhammad ibn Saud teamed up with vitriolic preacher Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab to create a religious pretext for the ongoing banditry. According to Abd al-Wahhab, almost all Muslims besides himself and his followers were heretics who deserved to be robbed and killed.

The British imperialists were delighted. They quickly turned the Saudi-Wahhabi alliance into brigade of anti-Muslim mercenaries—a sword aimed at the throat of the Muslim world in general and the Ottoman Caliphate in particular. For the most part, that has been the Saudi-Wahhabi role ever since. (The Americans took over the arrangement from the British after World War II.)

For a wonderful fictional description of the 20th-century history of “Saudi” Arabia, read Abdul Rahman Munif’s Cities of Salt novels. And for the short version, see Zafar Bangash’s essay “How Abdul Aziz proclaimed himself king of Najd and the Hijaz and renamed it ‘Saudi Arabia’.”

It’s also worth mentioning the conspiracy theories linking the Ibn Sauds to Sabbatean satanists in general and the crypto-Jewish Donmeh in particular. Are the Ibn Sauds not just desert bandits, but crypto-Jewish satanists? Wayne Madsen writes of the “the close intelligence and military links between the Dönmeh-descendent Sauds and Wahhabis in Arabia” and Israel, as well as other regional Israel-penetrated governments.

For decades, dissidents and experts alike have been predicting the fall of the Saudi dynasty. Through some combination of wily leadership, sheer luck, and help from the United States (and perhaps Israel) it hasn’t happened yet.

But epochal wars in the region are setting the stage for what could be the Ibn Sauds’ last act. The acting Saudi ruler, Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS), unwisely tied his leadership claim to a losing war on Yemen. It began in January 2015, when his father, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, acceded to the throne, and immediately appointed MBS as Minister of Defense. Two months after the appointment, MBS attacked Yemen. The ill-starred war gave MBS emergency powers, which he used to make himself de facto ruler (as commander of the military) two years before he was officially elevated to Crown Prince in 2017.

MBS’s genocidal war on Yemen, which has killed hundreds of thousands of people due to starvation and other forms of deprivation, has become the Crown Prince’s Vietnam. But that comparison is misleading: The Yemeni quagmire is even worse than Vietnam, in that Yemen is not just failing to buckle under the pressure of brutal Saudi bombings and a starvation blockade, it is hammering critically important Saudi targets—including the oil infrastructure that pays the salaries of the Uzi-and-chainsaw-wielding thugs who keep MBS in power.

This week, Yemen’s Ansurullah forces devastated the headquarters of Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s state oil company. With Saudi oil exports choked off to the east by Iran’s control of Hormuz, and to the west by Yemen’s recently-enhanced power over Bab al-Mandab, and the bills for MBS’s failed grandiose projects coming due, the stage is being set for a potential regime change. The Yemenis have also shut down Saudi airports in tit-for-tat retaliation strikes, while making territorial gains that could see Yemen regaining territory from Saudi Arabia. Former MI6 advisor and diplomat Alastair Crooke speculates:

Might the Saudi Kingdom experience a revolt against MbS? Such a possibility is not without precedent: When King Saud’s reckless governance threatened the monarchy’s survival in 1964, the family, senior princes, and the religious leadership stepped in to strip him of power and enforce his abdication.

In the event of the collapse of MbS-led al-Saud family rule, this would not only topple the Gulf colonial project, but would then initiate a scramble for a fundamental geopolitical re-alignment of the region.

For more on the checkered future of the Ibn Saud dynasty, I recommend Ron Unz’s new article, which links analyses by Prof. Mohammad Marandi, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, and Chas Freeman, as well as Alaistair Crooke.

Excerpt from False Flag Weekly News with E. Michael Jones

Kevin Barrett: Here in Saidia, Morocco, if you get down to the beach at 9 a.m., you can buy fresh fish. But over there at Hormuz, you can buy fresh iPhones, just caught. They’re as fresh as they get. Yeah, I’m at the wrong beach, that’s for sure.

And here’s what’s happening under the water.

Everybody’s having a good time except Trump. Trump is obviously not happy about how “Trump Strait” is playing out. And if he decides to bomb Iran with the mother of all bombs, or the bother of all moms, Iran has a target list: They’re going to hit lots of bridges, apparently. They’re targeting bridges in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Oman, Jordan, and, last but not least, the genocidal Zionist entity. They’re all going to lose bridges. So you think Trump’s going to go ahead and drop the MOM? They say Trump actually begged the Iranians to let him drop the mother of all bombs on Pickaxe Mountain and promise not to retaliate. And the Iranians told him to go take a flying leap into the Strait of Hormuz.

E. Michael Jones: Well, that was the original back and forth years ago when they arranged to have military bases bombed tit for tat. But we’re beyond that. Every time Trump goes forward, he ruins a relationship that he had before. And so now we’ve reached the point of the fundamental existential question for both America and Saudi Arabia: Is Trump going to defend the Saudis? Or is he going to tell them over the phone, “that’s your problem,” and end the relationship that basically was one of the fundamental pillars of America’s Third Republic, which is American military might guaranteeing the flow of oil to the United States to fuel its industry and the interstate highway system and all the cars that drive on?

Kevin Barrett: And don’t forget the petrodollar.

E. Michael Jones: The petrodollar, yes.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, “Arabia versus the Ibn Sauds”: That’s the theme this week. And Aramco headquarters has supposedly taken massive damage. American and Western media outlets are now admitting it. That happened a couple of days ago.

Aramco being the Saudi state oil company that’s partly owned by Western oil interests. It used to be totally owned by Western oil interests. And then they let the Saudis in on a little bit of the action.

The so-called Houthis, that is, the Ansarullah government of Yemen, which is the legitimate government of Yemen, is fighting against Saudi occupation. It is more than holding its own against one of the world’s richest countries with much of the world’s most expensive weaponry. How are they doing it, Mike?

E. Michael Jones: Because there’s an asymmetrical relationship between the obsolete military technologies of the Third Republic and the state-of-the-art military technology of the beginning of the Fourth Republic. So it doesn’t matter how much money you spend. If you spend it on an obsolete weapon like the aircraft carrier, you’re going to be defenseless.

We have reached a situation where there are only offensive weapons, which means anybody can destroy anything on the face of the earth, and no one can defend against it.

Nobody can do anything about it. Well, I guess we’re all in the same boat then.

Kevin Barrett: Although, if you have Pickaxe Mountain above your installations, you’re better off than if you don’t, I guess. So here are the Saudi air defenses at work.

Missed. Oh, well. That’s the Saudi air defenses.

And meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is supposedly getting shaky in terms of their government. We mentioned the coup de cat at the beginning.

And part of the reason is that they’re really not very nice to a lot of their citizens. This guy was a teenager when he was arrested for going to protests and then funerals of martyrs.

And so they’re still going to execute him. I guess they aren’t going to live stream it like Trump wants to do, but still. Human rights pariah, not quite like the genocidal entity, but still. The Mecca Pact was trying to redraw the region without Israel, we thought, with Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia working together.

But Saudi Arabia is looking like the weak leg of that partnership. So, Mike, are Pakistan and Turkey going to come to the Saudis’ rescue?

E. Michael Jones: Well, no one else is, and the Saudis have a lot of money, but they don’t have people. So again, we’re at the fundamental issue about money, which is the primary fetish that Marx described in Capitalism. People think that money can act. Shylock in The Merchant of Venice said “my ducats can copulate faster than Laban’s ewes and rams.”

Well, the real story here is the story of Midas, who had a lot of gold. As a matter of fact, he had the golden touch, which meant anything he touched would turn to gold, which meant he would starve to death because as soon as he picked up a sandwich, it would turn to gold.

So what we’re realizing here is that labor is the source of all value, and labor can only be performed by human beings, and all you can do with money is pay someone to work. So if you don’t have people, you can’t have labor, and that is precisely the situation that Saudi Arabia is in. They’re going to have to pay for mercenaries who come from Pakistan and Turkey to defend them. And those military alliances are fragile, especially if you think you’re going to sign on to support a loser, if you’re going to support the Titanic just before it hits the iceberg. What we’re seeing is in the Persian Gulf, all of those people now have to make a deal with Iran, because the United States has proven totally ineffectual in protecting them.

Kevin Barrett: I agree. And you and Marx are on the same page with the labor theory of value. I think that was one of the things that Marx got right. And the Saudis are not very good at labor, so all of that oil that’s under their sand isn’t really theirs.

And this piece by Alistair Crook, the former high-level British MI6 guy and diplomat, provides the theme of this week’s show, which is that MBS, Mohammed bin Salman, is at risk internally, and not just from his pet cat with all of those Uzis. There are other people probably thinking about other ways of ruling the Arabian Peninsula.

E. Michael Jones: Yeah, Crooke had an interesting podcast where he comes on and he’s just kind of just a sad, sad man who said, all we’re witnessing is moral collapse, the collapse of morality when it comes to the role of government in the world.

A man who was a diplomat, who’s lived through a lot of this period leading up to this. So if morality collapses, then the only thing that’s left is force. And if you don’t have the force, you don’t have the power any more. And that’s precisely what is happening in Saudi Arabia. Where’s the force?

Kevin Barrett: He’s got guys with chainsaws.

E. Michael Jones: Where’s the force? Okay, you can chop people up, which is what they did with that journalist, Khashoggi. Chopped him up. Yeah, okay. Chop them up.

So across the board now, you’re seeing desperation as the source of strategy or the source of behavior, the guide for behavior, across the board.

And I’m saying the Israelis are in exactly the same situation as the Saudis right now. They are desperate. And when you’re desperate, the first reaction is to lash out. So we have this absolutely deranged type of vengeance and freaking out on the part of the Israeli talking heads among the Americans. You know, like Mark Levin, “nuke them, nuke them.”

And there is same type of desperation in Saudi Arabia, where they’re going to murder or execute a Shia. Bad idea. That split has never healed. When I met with the Ayatollah Shahrud in Golestan, the first thing he started talking about was the Saudis and how bad they were, awful people.

They still haven’t gotten over it after 1,500 years. So now, what’s going to happen now if you, in Bahrain, where the elite is Sunni and the majority of people are Shia? What’s going to happen there? Not a good idea.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, there could be a regime change in Bahrain as well as in Saudi Arabia. And possibly a couple of other places as well. Kuwait is thought of by many as a province of Iraq, which is itself a province of what was the Ottoman Caliphate. So it’s possible that these borders are going to get redrawn.

And here is a deep dive from Daniel Haqiqatjou of the MuslimSkeptic website on Wahhabism and the legacy of Ibn Saud. The Ibn Saud family basically were warlords who made their living murdering and robbing pilgrims to Mecca. And then they hooked up with the Wahhabis, Abdul Wahhab, who said everybody but him was a heretic, so you could kill and rob them. And so the Ibn Sauds said, “hey, that sounds good. You can be our family theologian.” And at that point, then the British said, “Wow, this is great. We’ve got Muslims who want to kill and rob other Muslims. Let’s weaponize them, give them money and guns.” And that’s really where the Ibn Saud family started. But it looks like it may be nearing the end of its run.

E. Michael Jones: It’s similar to British history. What are we talking about? The Reformation, where you have a kind of—instead of Islamic Calvinism of the sort that Wahhabism is, you’ve got English Calvinism, which is the most radical form of the Protestant Reformation that basically takes over England during the revolutionary decade of the 1640s and leaves a legacy behind that is disastrous…certainly disastrous for the Irish. With Cromwell and Drogheda, but disastrous for Americans well, because they provided an untenable ideology as the basic identity of America. I’m talking about Massachusetts, which won the war with Virginia. Massachusetts as the Calvinist enterprise in America, and the legacy of Sola Scriptura, which means I am Gideon, and you’re Amalek, so we can exterminate you, which led to the extermination of the Indians. It’s been a disaster, a disaster. We need some type of stability, some type of intellectual moral stability, as Crooke mentioned in his sad podcast.

Kevin Barrett: Well, you know, Mike, I think you’re onto something with that comparison between the Wahhabis and the extremist Puritans. And indeed, the looting and the extreme religious ideology behind some of it actually does bear comparison. And the Old Testament being misinterpreted by people like that.

E. Michael Jones: I know you’re a Marcionite. I know you’re a Marcionite!

Kevin Barrett: I’m worse than that. I’m a Unitarian Marcionite with a camel!

E. Michael Jones: But that’s not the orthodox interpretation of the Old Testament. Marcion was a heretic. But anyway, that’s another story…

(The full transcript is available at my Substack.)

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link TruthJihad link

Based on its population and GDP, the EU should be sharing #1 global power status with China. Together, they could end wars, prosecute war crimes and genocide, and help the planet transition to peace, prosperity, and sustainability.

Instead, Europe, unlike China, has allowed itself to be crushed by the Epstein class—the Jewish-Zionist oligarchs who rule the USA from their ethnic crime base in Tel Aviv.

This winter, as the Euro-peasants freeze and starve in the dark thanks to the Zionist-occupied US empire blowing up their energy supplies, will those peasants rise up in revolt? -KB

Transcript:

Press TV: Good evening. From Paris and Brussels to protests in Albania and growing affordability concerns in Spain, economic discontent is putting European governments under pressure. Rising energy costs, expensive housing, strained public services and austerity measures are squeezing households while governments face mounting debt and difficult budget choices.

The war against Iran has added a fresh energy shock to an economy already dealing with the consequences of the conflict in Ukraine. So how much of Europe’s cost-of-living crisis is driven by war? And how much of it is driven by deeper economic problems? And who is paying the price? That’s what we’ll be discussing tonight with our guests.

Joining us is Kevin Barrett, editor of Al-Andalus Tribune, from the city of Saidia in Morocco. And also joining us will be Mick Napier, co-founder of a Scottish Palestine solidarity campaign, from the city of Glasgow. Mr. Barrett, thank you so much for your time tonight.

I’m going to begin with your initial thoughts on what we are seeing on the streets and different capital cities across Europe. You’re seeing demonstrations and growing public anger… Would you say that this is just a normal and common European cost of living crisis or we are seeing actually different national problems all at the same time converging?

Kevin Barrett: I think this is a more intense and complicated crisis than the usual economic protests that happen cyclically in European capitals, in particular in Paris. There’s a long history (of student protests against tuition and in favor of better educational facilities.) So that’s been going on forever.

But now we’re seeing a new situation. European society is in a state of moral as well as economic crisis. Emmanuel Todd is the most interesting thinker who’s delved into this, the rise of nihilism, the loss of a sense of meaning in life. I think that’s part of the problem.

And then politically, you have elites who are completely disconnected from the normal European people, especially those in harder economic circumstances. The elites have chosen policies that intensify the problem of the misappropriation and maldistribution of wealth, more and more going to the top, the billionaire Epstein class.

The European elite has been complicit in Europe being crushed and defeated in wars waged by the Americans and their Israeli masters.

And in foreign policy, the European elite has been complicit in Europe being crushed and defeated in wars waged by the Americans and their Israeli masters. In particular, the Europeans jumped in on the side of the Americans when the Americans attacked Russia through Ukraine and blew up the Nord Stream pipeline, thereby robbing Europe of cheap energy and killing Europe’s industrial sector and economy.

European leaders have gotten even more excited about this American war on Russia through Ukraine than the Americans are. And in fact, I would say that this is really mostly an American war against Europe, because Europe (unlike Russia) could be more powerful than the United States, thanks to its population and potential GDP.

And then there’s Trump’s insane war on Iran, guided by Netanyahu with his Epstein blackmail material on the American president. And the Europeans have not put up any meaningful resistance. This war, too, is killing the European economy. So the Europeans have mortgaged themselves to the Zionist oligarchs of the Epstein class who run the American empire, and they’ve relegated themselves not only to second-class status, but to economic penury. And the citizens are fed up with this, and they’re rising up.

Press TV: Mr. Napier, thank you so much for your time tonight as well. The euro area inflation rose to 3.8 percent and that was in September with energy making a major contribution. How directly is the latest energy shock that is coming, as Mr. Barrett was just alluding to, from the Iran war? And what other causes do you see that are contributing to the current situation in Europe?

Mick Napier: Well, it comes on top of a long process of redistribution of wealth, certainly in Britain, but also other countries, from the majority to a very tiny minority. We have in Britain a situation where a couple of million families each day are experiencing real hunger. And children are missing one meal a day simply to get by. Families have to choose between heating their homes in winter or having enough food. So it’s a very serious crisis at the bottom of society. But I can only imagine, I’m not an expert, that it’s very much the same in France.

And so on top of this, we are having an increase in inflation. We’ve got a crisis of legitimacy for our elites. It’s not so long ago that Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party in a process that was never supposed to happen. But he was allowed to become Labour Party by the dominant Labour. He was allowed to become leader by the oligarchy who normally run the Labour Party. And dramatic things started to happen. He turned the Labour Party into one of the, if not the biggest party in Western Europe, he put up a lot of support based on hope. He spoke to mass meetings of thousands of people out in the open in city after city. And he denounced Israeli crimes in Palestine. And he denounced the endless wars that Britain has been involved in. This produced such a dramatic challenge to ruling elites, that he had to be crushed, and crushed he was.

But the end result is that the dissatisfaction that gave him such an impetus, which he was unable to channel, is still there. And it’s now, part of it is now moving in a direction towards Reform Party, who are based on demonizing immigrants and asylum seekers and non-white people generally. But as with Trump in the USA, it’s a deep-seated malaise finding the political channels which are open to it. And that’s where we are at the moment. So riots in France… yes. Britain has a long history of riots. Margaret Thatcher was forced to abandon the hated poll tax through riots in Trafalgar Square and across London.

In the past, we’ve had trade union insurgencies, which have led the British government, for example, to call an election, Ted Heath, to call a general election, based on the question to the electorate: Who rules the country, the unions or the government? Well, the electorate voted against the government. And we had a three-day week, a prolonged economic crisis, which Thatcher finally resolved by crushing the miners during a one-year strike.

So this history of insurgency is not French, it’s not the French disease, it’s not the British disease. It happens from time to time. And at the moment, I would argue that the intense, extreme inequality in the distribution of wealth is eating away at and eroding the legitimacy of the governments, and it can blow up at any time.

I think our own government is extremely wary. The Chancellor at the moment is facing a very difficult choice. And he, in the last few days, talked about imposing some kind of tax on banks. The IMF has responded very clearly and said, do not tax banks. The best thing to do is to tax pensions and social services. But Healy knows that if he does that, he risks something along the lines of France. Because the disillusionment and the anger is pent up. It hasn’t found a channel, a legitimate constitutional channel, and therefore it can easily erupt into something different, something along the French lines.

So I think this situation can probably be replicated in other countries across Europe. But in Britain, I think the government is on the horns of the dilemma and doesn’t quite know how to resolve this. It can either anger the bankers and the IMF, which is very difficult for them, or it can attack pensions, which would cause an increase in the anger, which is already finding expression. I mean, the instability is remarkable. I think only a month or so ago, a poll in London and across England showed the Green Party, previously a completely marginal party, to be neck and neck or even slightly ahead of the Labour Party in many areas. And that’s an example of how the pent-up anger at poverty, at hunger, at billionaires flaunting their wealth, at government corruption, looked for a channel with the Greens, and that hasn’t gone away.

So I think this is a long-term crisis. How it will be resolved, nobody can predict in detail. But it certainly shows that there’s a widespread social instability across Europe.

Press TV: Thank you so much, Mr. Napier. Mr. Barrett, do you see the capability of governments to address the root causes of why something like the current crisis in Europe is happening? Or would you say that all they can do right now is a more brutal crackdown by the police while just addressing the symptoms?

Kevin Barrett: I think they will be only addressing the symptoms and cracking down, because I don’t think that they have the courage or the vision or even the understanding to attack the root problems, which are, as the other guest said, the discrepancy in wealth in which the billionaire elite is siphoning off more and more and more of the goods, and the standard of living of ordinary people is stagnating or worse. And to deal with that productively, it would require a serious rethinking of a whole lot of issues: possibly going to public banking rather than private banking, possibly going to guaranteed minimum incomes, taxing the wealthy, and particularly the parasitical wealthy, and things like that.

But they’re not going to do that, because these politicians are bought and paid for by the Epstein class. And they’re not even really owned by Epstein class people of their own countries, but this international elite that’s more based in places like the U.S. and Israel than in European countries.

And secondly, their foreign policy should radically change. There’s no reason why Europe couldn’t actually be the world’s number one power alongside China. It could share the number one ranking with China given its population and GDP.

But they have an inferiority complex vis-à-vis the United States. And so they’ve been colonized by the United States and its dual citizen Israeli masters. And they’ve accepted this humiliating position of being ordered around and pushed around by the American Epstein class billionaire elite that runs the collapsing American empire.

They should take one look at Trump and run for the exits from the American empire, and basically declare their independence from the American empire.

And they don’t seem to have any sense of what it would take to get out of that position. And, of course, what it would take would be for them to break off from subservience to the Zionist overclass and the American masters and Trump. They should take one look at Trump and run for the exits from the American empire, and basically declare their independence from the American empire.

Europe needs cheap energy. They need to solve the Ukraine problem, by recognizing Russia’s legitimate security needs. And then they need to get on board with Iran and China against the U.S. and Israel, because there’s no reason why Europe shouldn’t be profiting from very profitable trade with China.

Europe should be getting cheap energy from Russia and West Asia, including from Iran. Europe should be jumping into Iran and making money in Iran, because the Americans don’t want to. The Zionists won’t let them. So why shouldn’t Europe? Europe should be supporting Iran on its nuclear issue, in order to keep Iran on a path towards peaceful and prosperous nuclear energy.

So Europe’s leaders could rethink their whole stance on foreign policy to the profit of Europe and the European people. And they could, of course, rethink their economic policies to benefit ordinary people. But this current crop of European leaders won’t do it. And likewise, the right-wing alternative isn’t likely to do it either.

Are any visionaries in the center or towards the left of center who can actually think these things through and stand up and exhibit some leadership, like people like de Gaulle used to exhibit in the past? Maybe Melenchon in France is trying to channel this revolutionary spirit. We’ll see where that goes. But right now I don’t have a lot of faith that Europe’s leaders are going to rise to the occasion.

Press TV: Mr. Barrett, staying with you….Would you say that Europe has, let’s say, the backbone to stay on its own feet and say no to the U.S. when there is a crisis going on with the student protests that began and it have spread to different countries across the continent? We know that the Strait of Hormuz is closed. The Strait of Bab al-Mandab is disrupted. We have the Ukraine war. Ukraine is still targeting Russian oil facilities and refineries, which is affecting the oil prices and energy prices as the winter is approaching. Would you say that is likely?

Kevin Barrett: Unfortunately, no. Europe’s leaders seem to be helpless bystanders, or even experiencing Stockholm Syndrome. They are working against their own interests, the interests of their countries, the interests of their people.

There have been some independent European leaders in the past. Jaques Chirac knew 9/11 was a false flag, and he opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And so then the neocon Epstein class oligarchs that rule the U.S. empire got rid of him and put their pet puppets in power. And all these European leaders today are probably Epsteined themselves. The US National Security Agency (and Israeli Unit 8200) gets into their phones, has routinely broken into the leaders of Germany and other countries’ phones. There are organized blackmail attempts led by Israel and its billionaire Epstein-class elite. And they get blackmail material on these people. So I think that the European leadership—it’s partly they have no vision. Maybe some of them are not very intelligent, as it certainly appears. And then they’re also apparently blackmailed by the same people who are blackmailing Trump. So, no, I don’t think they’re going to rise to the occasion at all.

Press TV: Mr. Napier, I wanted to focus on the wider geopolitical picture. You just heard my question to Mr.Barrett. Would you say that the European Countries have the capability to stand on their own feet. We just heard Donald Trump a couple of days ago saying that Ukraine needs a new leader, not Volodymyr Zelensky.

It has been shown time and again that Europe and Donald Trump do not see eye to eye when it comes to the European-Ukraine policy. We also have the Strait of Hormuz closed, the Strait of Bab al-Mandab is disrupted, and winter is approaching. Do you see that likely that Europe will change its policy when it comes to aligning itself with Washington all the time?

Mick Napier: I’m afraid to say yes, at least on the issue of ramping up war hysteria against Russia. Not just the French, but the British and the Germans are going for bust. They are prepared without Trump, although the challenge will be huge. They are prepared to continue supporting the Ukrainian regime to continue its war right up to the Russian borders. We saw Boris Johnson before taking a leading role in trying to prevent peace breaking out between Ukraine and Russia.

And Andy Burnham, the new Prime Minister, I don’t think takes second place to him in that. He’s very, very committed to continuing to support the Zelensky government or to support the Ukrainian military against Russia. So yes, I’m afraid that in that area, they are prepared to try to act independently of Trump.

That has to be set beside the situation with the American attack on Iran. Initially, let me get this right,Burnham flip-flopped. He supported it. And then he said that America would not be allowed to use UK bases for the attack. And then he flipped again and said that he would support the Americans in the attack on Iran on a defensive basis. That is, he would support American defense.

Press TV: Thank you so much for your thoughts. I’m so sorry to interrupt. We have run out of time. Thank youboth gentlemen. Kevin Barrett, editor of Al-Andalus Tribune, join us from the City of Saidia in Morocco. And Mick Napier, co-founder of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, joining us from the City of Glasgow. Thank you both again.

And that brings us to the end of this edition of our Spotlight program. Thank you so much for joining us, and bye-bye.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link

In the above podcast, Political Science professor emeritus Salim Mansur discusses his new article “October 7, 2023 Was Revelatory: And So Will Be Its Abiding Significance in History.” He also discusses the reasons why mainstream media outlets were eager to publish his articles beginning in the 1990s, but are suppressing his recent articles supporting the 9/11 truth movement and the Palestinian cause, calling out the Gaza genocide, and celebrating Israel Shahak’s trenchant critique of Judaism.

Salim Mansur is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario and has published in many of Canada’s biggest newspapers as well as international publications.

October 7, 2023 Was Revelatory: And So Will Be Its Abiding Significance in History.

by Salim Mansur

Auden’s lines, “Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return”, recall the oldest counsel of the wise elders – the shamans, oracles, avatars, priests. In Vedantic scripture Auden’s lines is akin to the meaning of “karma”, the moral principle of consequence of consequence. Or inversely, as Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” Or in like manner the Qur’an prohibits killing, for “if anyone kills a person it is as if he kills all mankind.”

The exception to this most ancient counsel of wisdom is that of the Talmudic Jews and their modern descendants, the Zionists. For them, as Auden points out, their psychopathic god time and again counselled his “chosen” people to engage in murder, mayhem, and genocide as their scribes noted in their scrolls. Here, for instance, is the gist of this repeated command from Deuteronomy 20: 16-17:

“However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them – the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites – as the Lord your God has commanded you.”

Note how contrary is the command of Yahweh, the God that speaks from a burning bush or marches ahead of the “chosen” people as a pillar of fire, from that of the God of Abraham mentioned in the Qur’an, that nations and tribes were made so that they learn from each other to live together.

October 7, 2023, was when the progeny of those ancient people the psychopathic god ordered his “chosen” ones to massacre, revolted by launching “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” against their tormentors doing evil to them for defending their heritage from being erased since the early decades of the last century…

(Read the full article at the Al-Andalus Tribune.)

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link

Ex-Navy/NSA journalist and author Wayne Madsen recently wrote: “With the end of Pax Americana and the Russian Empire, move the UN out of New York.” (What end of the Russian empire, Wayne?! And what does Russia have to do with the UN needing to leave New York?!)

Setting Russia aside for a moment, Wayne Madsen has a point. There are many reasons why a UNexit is overdue:

*The United States persistently prevents delegations from reaching UN Headquarters, a violation of the UN charter.

*The US is an outlaw nation, refusing to recognize the ICC and ICJ even as it funds the genocide of Palestine and repeatedly commits the supreme war crime, aggression—meaning its leaders need to be tried, convicted, and hanged.

*The US persistently threatens other nations, including “allies” like Canada and the EU, and repeatedly commits the supreme war crime, aggression, by attacking and invading countries including Iran, Venezuela, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and blockading and starving others including Cuba.

*On January 7, 2026, the United States officially initiated a mass withdrawal from 66 international organizations, conventions, and treaties (comprising 31 United Nations-affiliated bodies and 35 non-UN entities).

*The US is so far behind on its UN dues that it should have been evicted long ago:

“Current estimates put outstanding U.S. peacekeeping assessments alone at more than $2.3 billion. The only reason the United States paid $725 million toward its outstanding UN dues obligation last month was that its scofflaw status threatened to have its right to vote in the General Assembly suspended. That payment did not bring the United States current. The UN has stated that 95% of arrears in regular-budget contributions are attributable to the United States.”

While Madsen is right that the UN needs to leave the US—and rendition US leaders for war crimes—his thinking about Russia strikes me as bizarrely confused. The Russian military is the single biggest impediment to US military domination of the world. Without Russia, would there even be “an end to Pax Americana”?

And while US global power is indeed collapsing—as illustrated by Iran’s expulsion of the American military from the Middle East, and China’s clear dominance of its region—what does Madsen mean by suggesting that the Russian Empire is ending? On the contrary, the US has been trying to break up and loot Russia since 2014, and it has clearly failed. The Russian Empire isn’t going anywhere. It’s the main military pillar of the emerging multipolar world order.

Why is Madsen, like the Euro-poodles and upper-class twits, yapping at Russia? Despite the collapse of the US, the central pillar of global liberalism, Madsen apparently imagines that Europe will pick up the torch and defeat Russia. He seems oblivious to the fact that the EU, and liberalism itself, are collapsing right alongside the US.

There is a grotesque contradiction at the heart of liberalism, which opposes multi-ethnic empires and seeks to break them up into a myriad of ethno-states…while at the same time delegitimizing the very notion of the ethno-state (except in the case of the Jewish supremacist ethnostate that is committing genocide in Occupied Palestine).

In reality, there is nothing inherently wrong with multi-ethnic empires like Russia (and indeed the US). Almost all “nations” are actually disguised multi-ethnic empires. As for the Russian empire, it is no longer the expansionist entity of past centuries, and there is no reason to think that it will launch wars of expansion in the emerging multipolar world.

In short, the Russian empire, committed to defense not offense, is not the problem. It is aggressive imperial states like the collapsing US, and its genocidal master “Israel,” that need to be reined in.

Despite agreeing about almost everything else, Wayne Madsen and I argued about Russia. Who’s right? Listen and leave a comment.

Excerpt:

Wayne Madsen: There are a lot of proposals on how to deal with a post-Pax Americana UN, one being get rid of the veto. Have an expanded Security Council.

Kevin Barrrett: The old Security Council is the victors of World War II, right? So let’s make the next Security Council the victors of World War III. That’s going to be China, Iran, Russia, for better or worse, from your perspective, and maybe Hezbollah and the Houthis.

Wayne Madsen: Yeah. I look at Russia more as a – it’s – We saw the collapse of a lot of colonial empires after World War II, the British, the French, later on the Portuguese, and the Spanish, and the Dutch, except for the Caribbean. Russia was never…but these were maritime empires.Russia was a land empire, so their colonial conquests were to the north, to the east, and to the south. Basically, these were conquests by a czar who lived in Moscow and St. Petersburg, for the most part. So when you talk about decolonization of Russia, we’re talking about decolonization of, in some cases, landlocked conquered nations that still are aspirant nations for independence.

They have different languages, different religions, different cultures. So to the north, you find the Finno-Ugric republics that are much closer. Lenin himself said, look, any constituent part of the Soviet Union, if you don’t like it, you have the right to secede. That’s never worked in practice, though. When Stalin came in, that was totally off the table.

So you go to the north, getting in the Arctic regions, the Finno-Ugric people, they’re much closer to Finland and Estonia than they are to Moscow. Their languages are very much the same. Religion actually at one time was either traditional religion or Lutheran. You go east, you find nations that are Buddhist, and they’re closer to Mongolia, culture-wise, language-wise, than to Moscow. You go to the south, and the conquered lands are predominantly Islamic countries, especially in the Caucasus.

So Russia is really the last remaining colonial empire that has not decolonized. And what Putin is doing is he’s taking a lot of these ethnic minority groups and throwing them into the Ukrainian meat grinder. It’s basically a form of ethnic genocide: “We can eliminate this problem with nationalities by getting rid of the nationalities.” And even though information is highly controlled and restricted in Russia, the body bags coming back to these distant ethnic republics, that’s showing the people there what really is going on.

Kevin Barrett: That was true in World War II to some extent, too, right?

Wayne Madsen: Yeah, yeah. Stalin did not trust a lot of these ethnic nationalities. He thought that they were fifth columns for the Nazis. And he deported many of these people to Siberia, uprooted them. Ukrainians also. And it’s funny, the result of that is, a lot of people don’t know this, outside of Ukraine, there are four pockets of Ukrainian groups from over near the Chinese border into Siberia and around the Caspian Sea. And they call these groups by different colors that they’ve adopted, basically, in their regional flags or local ethnic flags. There’s the green Ukraine, which is out by China. There’s a gray Ukraine, which is kind of Siberia, southern Siberia. There’s a yellow Ukraine. And then there’s one that they call, because it’s a direct translation, they didn’t have, I guess, a name for this particular color of dark pink, kind of reddish pink. They call it raspberry Ukraine.

Kevin Barrett: It sounds like a good flavor of ice cream.

Wayne Madsen: Exactly, exactly. But these are the results of an empire, whether it was the one created by the Tsar or the one perpetuated by Joseph Stalin. And now Putin doesn’t want to recognize that these countries have every right to break away, as did the countries of the Soviet Union when they broke away.

Kevin Barrett: Let me give you a quick response to that. Number one, the Ukraine meat grinder is there because the United States insisted on breaking its promise of not moving NATO one inch eastward, and instead marched right up to the Russian border under a first strike nuclear doctrine. And the Russian paranoid reflex, which has been honed throughout history (has been triggered).

I always call this the U.S. war on Russia and Europe through Ukraine, because this was done to raid and loot Europe (as well as Russia) and basically force them to pay two or three times as much for energy from the US, to buy our expensive energy instead of cheap Russian energy, thereby damaging Europe and keeping it from becoming as powerful as the United States.

And then secondly, the US warmongers’ long-term objective is, just as you suggested, to break up and loot Russia.

Wayne Madsen: I don’t look at Russia as Russia, looking at the history. And many of these ethnic groups, yes, there are other powers at play, the oligarchs in Russia, the ones over here. But the people that live in these non-Russian republics and regions, they don’t even really look at the government, the Russian government as the government of Russia. They look at it as Moscow. And even ethnic Russians have come to believe that the people that live in Moscow don’t care about us.

Kevin Barrett: Like Washington in the U.S., right?

Wayne Madsen: Exactly. You got this recent State Duma election, which was totally fixed. And I think that’s the one Trump looks to and says, that’s what I want to have here. I want everyone to vote for my Republican Party, which... It’s nothing like the previous one. It’s a vanity party like United Russia is for Putin.

But now you see a lot of the inter-ethnic issues between Russians and non-Russians kind of being tamped down. And now you have people saying, wait a minute, you know, none of us are being helped by this kleptocratic government in Moscow.

Kevin Barrett: But that’s not the problem. It’s the Americans that started the war to crush both Europe and Russia and all of those people (of all ethnicities and nationalities). Russia lost life expectancy in the 90s, during the US breakup and looting of Russia, no matter what their ethnicity was, whether they were in Moscow, whether they were off in the provinces.

And so again, to fix this problem, we need international law to stop the United States from being a militarized rogue state that is running around trying to break up other states, overthrow other governments like it did in Maidan in 2014, and basically wage genocidal wars and commit war crimes all over the world. I see Putin’s Russia as a victim in this.

(Full transcript available at my Substack.)

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

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link

On October 7, 2026, a front-page New York Times headline vaunted “Trump’s Retreat.” It wasn’t referring to Mar-a-Lago or Epstein Island.

The full headline, complete with subhead, reads:

“Trump’s Retreat: From the Gulf to Britain, American Forces Pull Back. A war that was intended to demonstrate the reach of American power has now done the opposite. It is a lesson in unintended consequences.”

The “war that was intended to demonstration the reach of American power” was, of course, Trump’s ill-fated attack on Iran that began last February 28. But by publishing the story on October 7, the three-year anniversary of the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, the Times insinuated, intentionally or not, a causal link between Hamas’s heroic 2023 concentration-camp breakout and the collapse of the American empire following Trump’s losing war on Iran.

What the Times did not come right out and say, of course, is that the US has bled itself dry fighting losing wars for Israel, and that the October 7, 2023 provocation set off Israel’s long-planned US war on the last of the “seven countries in five years” that 9/11 was designed to “take out.”

About a month after the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Gen. Wesley Clark got word that the whole purpose of 9/11 was the destruction of Israel’s region enemies:

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

Thanks to resistance from the people of the region, and from realists in the US national security sector, Clark’s “seven countries in five years” turned out be be “seven countries in twenty-five years.” And the seventh, Iran, is not being “taken out.” Instead, it is Iran that is “taking out” the US empire.

But it was the Palestinian Resistance, specifically its Al-Aqsa Flood concentration camp breakout, that gave Iran the opportunity to show what it could do. Absent Al-Aqsa Flood, we would be living in a very different world:

*“Normalization” with the abnormal Zionist entity would have continued apace, and the Palestinian cause marginalized.

*US military bases would have continued to permeate and surround the Middle East.

*US naval forces would have continued to swarm unimpeded through the Strait of Hormuz and all over the Persian Gulf.

*The illusion that the US could protect and control Middle Eastern energy supplies would have been maintained.

*Propped up by its Middle Eastern footprint, the US empire’s military juggernaut would have continued to intimidate the world, leading to a gradual drawdown of US political and economic power over the next few decades, rather than the rapid collapse taking place right now.

Robert Kagan, dean of the neocons, has pointed out that without Trump-n’-Yahu’s idiotic attack on Iran last February 28, the US would have continued to successfully deter Iran from taking advantage of its geography and establishing control of the Persian Gulf. That deterrence did not depend on America’s power to defeat Iran and/or keep the Strait open. America had no such power, as we are seeing now. Instead, deterrence worked by creating uncertainty in the minds of Iran’s leaders about what might happen if they aggressively moved to seize control of the Strait. It worked by convincing them that seizing the Strait might cost them their lives. Most importantly, it worked by virtue of the fact that Iran’s leaders, unlike American and Israeli ones, are morally upright and unwilling to engage in acts of aggression.

By attacking Iran, Netanyahu and his blackmailed pedo-slave Trump removed all of Iran’s incentives to remain deterred. First and most importantly, it handed Iran its right of self-defense on the proverbial silver platter. Seizing Hormuz suddenly became a defensive act, not an aggressive one.

By martyring many of Iran’s top leaders, including Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Trump-n’-Yahu also removed the deterrent effect of Iran’s leaders fearing for their lives if they seized the Strait of Hormuz: “If they’re going to try to kill us even if we don’t take over the Strait, what have we got to lose?” Suddenly Iran’s perception of its best path to security radically shifted from “reason, moderation, and accommodation” to “hardline military moves aimed at transforming the regional security equation.”

Clearly, the February 28 attack on Iran was supremely irrational. Every serious analyst knew Iran would respond by seizing control of the Strait. That had been war-gamed thousands of times. And if the US lost hugely to Iran in 2003, according to the Millennium Challenge simulation, how was it going to win in 2026, after Iran had built up a powerful and impregnable drone and missile force?

How could a would-be global hegemon be so stupid? The answer, of course, is that Trump obeyed orders from Netanyahu to attack Iran. But that just passes the buck to Netanyahu. How could he be so stupid? After all, when the US is defeated and driven out of West Asia, Israel’s days will be numbered.

Netanyahu’s irrationality, like Trump’s, stems from narcissistic hubris. Both leaders are monstrously egotistical. Both see the world through the distorting prism of their own self-serving vanity.

Netanyahu’s personal project, for more than four decades, has been inciting the US to destroy Israel’s regional enemies. Often that incitement has taken the form of reckless acts of false flag terror, as FFWN co-host Wyatt Peterson observed in his recent article “Blood and Terror Flow Wherever Bibi Goes.”

Clearly Netanyahu, and his co-ethnic agents like Paul Wolfowitz, have been frustrated by the slow pace of the US march on Tehran, which should have been taken out “five years” after 9/11. Pushback from American realists, and presidents like Bush and especially Obama who listened to them, has been driving Bibi up the wall ever since 9/11, which Bibi famously said was “very good…for Israel” and should have incited a quick clean sweep of Israel’s regional enemies, most importantly the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Decades of frustration at Israel’s inability to unleash a huge regional war—as a cover for accelerating the genocide of Palestine, grabbing territory from neighboring countries, and destroying Iran—led to Netanyahu’s hubristic incitements of October 7, 2023 and February 28, 2026.

In October 2023 Netanyahu got the Hamas attack he wanted, slaughtered his own civilians to raise the body count, and charged madly into his long-desired regional Armageddon. But instead of paving the road to Greater Israel, it has set the stage for a world without Israel:

*Israel has failed to achieve all of its military objectives, including defeating Hamas, freeing hostages militarily, emptying Gaza, emptying the West bank, putting an end to Hezbollah, seizing and settling territory in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran and its allies including not just Hezbollah, but also AnsurAllah in Yemen and the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq.

*US withdrawal from the region leaves Israel naked, exposed to surrounding nations who view it as an illegitimate settler colony and recklessly expansionist threat, and who will seize every available opportunity to put an end to the genocidal Zionist experiment.

*Israel has been completely delegitimized on the world stage, as witnessed by the Nobel Committee’s decision to thumb their noses at Trump and give the prize to anti-genocide UN investigator Navi Pillay.

Netanyahu’s grotesquely irrational war, “a lesson in unintended consequences,” stems not just from Bibi’s individual psychopathy, but from the larger psychopathy of the hardline Zionist movement he leads. These people may or may not believe in Yahweh, their Bronze Age tribal god, but they certainly do believe that Yahweh gave them a real estate deed to everything between the Nile and Euphrates more than 2500 years ago, so they are going to try to steal all that land before somebody else does.

The drooling, demented Zionists aren’t thinking strategically. They’re emoting. They’re perpetually driven to hysterics by the thought that somebody somewhere might say something “antisemitic” (meaning critical of Jews or Zionism). They’re endlessly whining about real or imaginary ill-treatment from the goyim, who want them stuffed into gas chambers or driven into the sea, and who kicked them out of every country they’ve ever lived in for no reason at all.

So they feel they have a valid excuse to lie outrageously about Hamas supposedly roasting babies and raping Jewesses, and using such tall tales (along with all the other tall tales from the Torah to the Holocaust) as an excuse to hunt children for sport, train dogs to rape prisoners, and commit the world’s first-ever live streamed genocide.

It is that fundamental irrationality, the product of 2500 years of mental illness “from Yahweh to Zion,” that is driving the US empire to its destruction in West Asia. On the opposite side of the ledger, the sanity, decency, and heroism of the concentration camp prisoners who broke out of their death camp on October 7, 2023—and their brave backers in the Axis of Resistance—has brought down what used to be, just a few years ago, the world’s mightiest empire.

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

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com

Rumble link Bitchute link

Transcript

Press TV: Good evening. Today, October the 8th, marks ten years since one of the deadliest attacks of the Yemen war, when a Saudi-led coalition airstrike hit a packed funeral hall in the capital Sana’a, killing and wounding hundreds. Ten years later, Saudi Arabia is once again escalating its military campaign in Yemen, and Ansarullah is responding with attacks reaching deep inside the Saudi territory. The latest ballistic missile strike targeted King Khaled International Airport in Riyadh following deadly attacks on Saudi airports earlier this week. So, is Ansarullah’s reprisal strategy creating a new deterrent against Saudi aggression? Or is Yemen heading toward an even wider regional war?

That’s what we’ll be discussing tonight with our guests. Ali Hamieh joining us, military and strategic affairs analyst from the capital, Beirut. And also joining us will be Kevin Barrett, editor of Al-Andalus Tribune joining us from Saidia, Morocco. Gentlemen, thank you so much for joining me at this hour. I’m going to begin with our guest in Beirut.

Mr. Hamieh, thank you so much for your time tonight. We have 10 years on the massacre and the funeral of Sana’a. What does this anniversary, Mr. Hamia, tell us about the roots of the current confrontation that we are witnessing between Saudi Arabia and Yemen?

Ali Hamieh: Let’s say that the 8th of October is 24 hours away from 7th of October. And we can see that Yemen and Palestine are under the category of oppressed people, one from the Israelis, and the other by the proxies of the Israelis and the Americans, the Saudis and the GCC countries.

And we can see all goals go into the same target: how to protect Israel and how to protect the American interests and the American military bases in the region. And it’s all connected.

Every time we hear about American withdrawal from anyplace…Didn’t we hear that the United States withdrew from Iraq about 15 years ago, 2011? So what are they withdrawing from right now? And we can see that the main goal is attacking Yemen. It’s by American dictation. And for Israelis benefit. And also this is the condition for Mohammed bin Salman to become a king. He has to get into a war against Yemen in order to satisfy the Israelis and the Americans.

Press TV: That’s right. Mr. Barrett, thank you so much for your time tonight as well. I wanted your broad takeaway when it comes to the escalation and tit-for-tat strikes between the Yemeni military and also Saudi Arabia. What is happening on the ground? And what is the role of the Americans here? We talked about this before, that there are about 200 U.S. military strategists that are helping Riyadh with its military operations. Your thoughts on that as well?

Kevin Barrett: Yes, it’s not surprising that Riyadh has had to depend on outside help for its military operations. This is a longstanding pattern, and essentially it’s because this society is not really an organic, coherent society with leadership representing a people or a nation. It’s basically a warlord family that was put in place by the British imperialists and maintained in place by the American imperialists. And so they’ve long been depending on foreign support, mainly American support, although they did get French Special Forces to help them attack some people who had been trying to take over the holy city of Mecca at one point.

And they have used other help as well. They’ve apparently gotten covert Israeli help and betrayed the Muslim Ummah by doing so. And now we’ve got these hundreds of American so-called advisors helping them, the way American advisors ran the war in Vietnam when they were secretly infiltrating smaller numbers of mercenaries before they went in big time.

But this time the American empire is on its way out. And so the leadership in Riyadh really should think hard about whether it wants to join itself at the hip to this foreign power that’s been running roughshod over the region and killing millions of people in the region and supporting the genocide of Palestine.

And now that great power, the United States, is pulling out of the region. And it’s even pulling out of Britain, according to major media stories here in the United States, because Britain, too, is within reach of Iranian strikes. So they’re leaving the West Asia region.

The Americans may or may not feel the need to go to war with China to try to decide the issue of who is the supreme global hegemon. But they’re not going to be there to keep propping up the Saudi royal family for very long. And so this is really a bad move by the Saudis, because they are setting themselves up for trouble. They’re trying to bring in this new alliance with Turkey and Pakistan, but I don’t think Turkey and Pakistan have any interest in sending major military forces to the Arabian Peninsula to try to prop up this unpopular and corrupt regime in Riyadh.

So Yemen is fighting to liberate the Arabian Peninsula, and if there can’t be some kind of compromise, then they’re going to have to go all the way.

Press TV: Mr. Hamieh, you listened to our other guest’s analysis here. When it comes to what is happening right now on the ground, also Ansar al-Allah today said that it targeted King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh. My question is, what is the significance of taking the fight into the aviation infrastructure of Saudi Arabia right now?

Ali Hamieh: Well, let’s first make a comparison between the Yemenis and Saudis. First of all, the Yemenis are fighting as Yemenis. And they are fighting with their own weapon they produced. Saudi Arabia is fighting with mercenaries. And they are fighting via American and Israeli intelligence and with the help of Turkey, Turkey and Pakistan.

And the Saudis are asking the help of all GCC countries to counterattack, and for aggression against Yemen again and again. So if we make such a comparison, we shouldn’t forget that most of the air defense systems are being destroyed or used by the Americans to protect Israel and to protect the American military bases in the region. Saudi Arabia is totally naked. They have their space naked. They are out of interceptors against the Yemeni’s Ansarullah missiles. So I believe Saudi Arabia is going into a pond and they will sink into the mud. They cannot survive. Yemen is like quicksand. They are swallowing most of the Saudi power.. We should not forget that 38 brigades at the beginning of this Saudi aggression against Yemen had surrounded the Yemenis, and were targeted. Three brigades were captured as POWs in eight hours—only eight hours at the beginning of this Saudi aggression against Yemen. AnsarUllah took back 5,400 square kilometers up to Bab al-Mandab city and Mayun Island in the middle of the Red Sea. So the Yemenis are taking new steps right now. They are not only defending themselves, they want to see that if they are not allowed to fly any of their airlines, which have been destroyed by Saudi Arabia, and they are not allowed to have any trades with outsiders, then Saudi Arabia will also be under Yemeni sanction. And today King Khaled Airport, which is the main international airport in Saudi Arabia, in Riyadh, is under Ansarullah attack. Yemen is saying that “if we are under embargo and under sanctions, it will be the same for Saudi Arabia.”

Press TV: Mr. Barrett, a general question on the analysis. We have been hearing it for a very long time, since the 12-day war, that the Israeli regime, the U.S., and right now we are hearing from Saudi Arabia, that they are running out of interceptor missiles. How serious should we take these reports, considering that it has been said for a very long time? Is there evidence on the ground that this is actually true?

Kevin Barrett: There is the debate about how accurate the interceptors are in the first place. Theodore Postol stakes out one extreme position, arguing that they’re not very useful at all. But the majority of analysts seem to think that the interceptors do actually work, and it’s just a matter of how many of them that have to be fired to try to stop an incoming missile or drone. And the United States is certainly running very low on these, as well as a long list of other items of military equipment and ammunition. And this is supposedly one of the reasons why military leaders have approached Trump and told him that he has to stop his war on Iran, that we’re using up all of our ammunition, we’re not going to be able to keep our commitments elsewhere in the world, and especially in East Asia.

So I think it’s very serious. And it’s also an issue with regard to the genocidal Zionist entity, which depends upon the American help that built its so-called Iron Dome—some call it the Iron Sieve, because it’s far from perfect. And they have used up a lot of their interceptors as well.

And so if and when they jump back into this regional war that they started, and indeed I believe the Zionists started this war, now that the defenses, the interceptors, are used up, the Americans are retreating from the region. And pretty soon that genocidal entity is going to find itself naked too, just like the Saudis are now.

So I think this is very serious. That the offensive missile power of Yemen, and of course Iran, and drones of course as well, put countries like Saudi Arabia, and particularly the rich elites who have so much to lose, in a position of being completely exposed. And because they have so much more to lose, because they have all of this wealth, and because they’re cowardly and they’re not willing to lay their lives on the line for a just cause, because their cause is unjust, therefore they are going to be motivated to try to find a way out, whether it’s turning tail and fleeing and abject surrender, or whether it’s settling on unfavorable terms.

Yemen and Iran are both real countries with ancient civilizations and very cohesive societies that realize that they are being attacked by evil oppressors—the very same people who are complicit in this genocide in Palestine. Countries like Iran and Yemen are capable of fighting in a far more cohesive and determined way than these artificial societies like these little Gulf statelets, including Saudi Arabia, which again is essentially a bandit warlord family claiming title to land that really belongs to the people of the region.

Press TV: Mr. Hamieh, I wanted to put the same question to you. Is there evidence on the ground that the U.S., and Saudi Arabia, according to multiple reports, are running out of interceptor missiles?

Ali Hamieh: They are not running out, but I think they are in a critical situation. We have three kinds of reserves. You have the military reserve, the war reserve, and the strategic reserve. And I believe they are at the edge between the war reserve and the strategic reserve, because the United States is not dealing only with Iran. It might be in a war against China, against somewhere else. And especially we shouldn’t forget that the war in Ukraine needs a lot of such weapons in order to intercept Russian drones and missiles. So I believe we are into a third world war, but intermittent in place and time.

And the United States, when they say they are out of war reserves, it doesn’t mean that the strategic reserve is out. But I don’t believe they have enough time to replenish against Russia in Ukraine and against Iran in West Asia, or to export such weapons to their allies in the region.

That’s why we can see the United States is regrouping right now, not redeploying or withdrawing. They are the regrouping in Syria and in Jordan only. And believe me, you will see them being kicked out by the last war, or the ongoing war, if we can say it. And they will withdraw from all the military bases (in West Asia) not because they like to, but in order to regroup, because they brought most of the interceptors from South Korea, from Germany, from the 7th Fleet, also they’ve been getting some war vessels from the 7th Fleet into the 5th Fleet in the region. So I believe they are in a critical situation according to the limits of their power, according to their desire for expansion in the world and for the big geographical map they want to dominate. But if you consider by quantity, I believe they still have enough quantity to go into one war—but not several wars at the same time.

Press TV: One big war against China, you mean?

Ali Hamieh: Yes, I believe so, whether it is direct or indirect. And that’s why we can see that the world is (dissolving) into NATO, BRICS, alliances with Israel, the other triple alliance between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Turkey. We are at the turning point right now. The United States understands that. They cannot only gather all of their mighty power against Iran, because they also have to be somewhere else. War can be ignited at any time.

There are 13 points in the war. What’s going on in Germany, what’s going on in the UK, the American airplanes withdrawing Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Russia, and the new coalition with Afghanistan against the Americans. And you can go into more details: what’s going on in France and Romania, what’s going on between Turkey and Greece. So they are all unstable—not only our region, but the whole world is unstable. And that’s why, as I said, we are a in a third world war, but it is intermittent in place and time.

Press TV: I see. Mr. Barrett, as we are talking about extra-regional wars, Saudi Arabia has been seeking support from countries like Pakistan and Turkey as well as the U.S. First of all, will they actively enter the war, beyond what we have been seeing so far? And if that is the case, how will that change the balance of power in this aggression against Yemen?

Kevin Barrett: I don’t see Pakistan entering the war in a major way, because Pakistan has its hands full dealing with India. And Pakistan has an alliance with China, which balances India. China tilts towards Iran, and indeed Yemen, in this conflict. So for those reasons, I can’t imagine Pakistan taking a lot of its military and sending it over to the Arabian Peninsula to defend Saudi Arabia from Yemen. That wouldn’t make any sense. And likewise, I don’t think Turkey actually has much motivation to do anything other than perhaps try to stand as a symbolic guarantee against the overthrow of the regime in Riyadh. But I’m not sure that they would actually stand by that guarantee if it came to that. So no, I don’t think this alliance is really a threat to get heavily involved in the war onYemen. I can see perhaps a certain amount of involvement, probably not much more than we would call symbolic.

And this is because, as the other guest correctly said, the world is changing quickly. It’s unstable, and each country at this point is scrambling to try to support its own interests and to try to fend off the kind of threats and the insecurity that comes with this rapidly changing world. And it’s changing so rapidly because the United States, which used to be accepted, to some extent, as a sort of global cop through its system of alliances, and the international law and the United Nations that it pretended to respect, even though it usually didn’t—the world was able to tolerate that.

But now the United States is getting weaker every day, and its behavior is completely intolerable. So that era of American hegemony has decisively ended, and the world is still seeking a new set of institutions to deal with a multipolar world.

Press TV: That’s right. Thank you both, gentlemen. Those were Kevin Barrett, editor of Al-Andalus Tribune, joining us from Saidia, Morocco, and Ali Hamieh, military and strategic affairs analyst from the city of Beirut. Thank you both. And that brings us to the end o fthis edition of our Spotlight program. Thank you for joining us, and bye-bye.

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

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com