Truth Jihad Radio

Youtube link

What really happened on 9/11? Why can’t we talk about it without being deplatformed, shadowbanned, and/or run out of the academy? And why are those who do talk about these things slandered as “antisemites”? I discussed all this and more with Michael Decon last week—and believe it or not, it’s still up on YouTube (which recently turned down my appeal to have my channel reinstated, citing “hate speech”).

Please note that this week’s False Flag Weekly News is scheduled for tomorrow, Sunday, instead of the usual Saturday.

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

Note: This interview was recorded before the latest Epstein revelations confirmed Epstein’s ties to Israel and strongly suggested that Trump is being blackmailed.

Jim Fetzer: It’s my great pleasure to have as my featured guest for the second hour, Kevin Barrett, a dear friend of decades. We’ve done shows together. There’s even a book about the two of us. This guy and I go way, way back. Kevin lives now in Morocco. He is a Muslim. I want to begin, Kevin, asking you about what I think is a trifecta that’s working very much against Israeli domination of the American government. Beginning with the shooting of Charlie Kirk: I’m convinced it was staged. It has caused tremendous uproar in the belief that Israel took him out because he was wandering off the Zionist reservation. Second, we had Tucker’s interview with Nick Fuentes. I didn’t know Nick before, but I loved the interview and I was so glad Tucker did it and it created consternation in conservative circles, which I thought was very much off base. The head of the Heritage Foundation was supportive of Tucker having the the interview with Fuentes. And then third, of course: The election of Mamdami in New York City, himself a Muslim. I believe we’ve created here a perfect storm focusing on the role of Israel in dominating American society, running our government. I think that people are sick of it, and that these events combined together are giving a focus to and motivation for doing something about it. Your thoughts?

Kevin Barrett: That’s a great intro, Jim. I couldn’t have said it better myself. I tried to say it better—I recently published a piece headlined “Mamdani and Fuentes Are Both Good Signs.” It got headlined at the Unz Review. And I was saying a lot of what you just said.

I think that the assassination of Charlie Kirk on the eve of September 11th, the anniversary of 9/11, when Tucker Carlson had been scheduled to put out the most important documentary film on 9/11 since Massimo Mazzucco’s September 11th, The New Pearl Harbor, came out back in 2014—obviously Tucker has a much bigger audience—I think that (assassination) really blew up in the faces of the perpetrators. Their purposes were, I think, not only to prevent Charlie Kirk from wandering off the Zionist reservation, but perhaps also, as Ron Unz pointed out quite cogently, to perhaps try to take a little bit of the wind out of the sails of Tucker Carlson’s reopening the 9/11 case. Because Tucker Carlson was close friends with Charlie Kirk. And had Charlie Kirk lived, he would certainly have promoted Tucker’s 9/11 documentary series to his considerable audience. And so it would have been an even bigger audience than it already was from Tucker alone. And it also would have premiered on September 11th itself. So because of Charlie Kirk’s assassination on September 10th, the Tucker Carlson 9/11 video was postponed. It came out later to somewhat less impact, although it’s still having an impact. And his presentation to the 9/11 Truth Conference in Washington, D.C. was canceled.

I think it blew up in their faces because a lot of people, with Candace Owens being among them, are outraged at the holes in the official story of the Charlie Kirk shooting. And there are all sorts of circumstantial evidence pointing at Israel. Even people like Max Blumenthal, who was never very friendly to us “9/11 conspiracy theorists,” and was kind of more in the mainstream on some of these issues, actually spearheaded the movement to reinvestigate Charlie Kirk and to point the finger at Israel.

So, yeah, I think that’s a huge factor. And Fuentes is getting mainstream. It’s not just his going on Tucker Carlson’s show. Suddenly Fuentes is all over the mainstream media now. And the coverage is, of course, somewhat unfavorable, but maybe not as unfavorable as one would expect. Some people are suspicious that the mainstream media started rehabbing Nick Fuentes like a week before the Charlie Kirk shooting. He had a big New York Times piece on him. So that is a little strange.

But I still think it’s a good sign that Fuentes, with his hardcore anti-Zionist views, his genuine America First views—he’s MAGA as MAGA should be—is getting this attention now. Together with the Charlie Kirk investigation and then the Mamdani election—who would ever think that an out and out anti-Zionist Muslim would get elected mayor of the most powerful Jewish city in the world? So it’s a good sign, and Mamdani is going after the Zionist oligarchs who rule America from a different angle. Not just because they’re Zionists, but because they’re oligarchs. He’s broaching the concept of essentially taxing billionaire oligarchs into extinction, which is obviously what needs to be done to get rid of our oligarchy. So, yeah, I think these are all really excellent signs. It is kind of a perfect storm and a trifecta.

(Read the full transcript by clicking “transcript” above the video image 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

Noted anti-Zionist author Israel Shamir says the Zionist-occupied US empire is risking World War III by testing Russia’s red lines—despite Trump’s campaign promise to end the war “in one day.” Will the US really start firing “Ukrainian” nuclear-capable Tomahawk missiles deep into Russia? Will it force the EU to impoverish itself on weapons spending and become a dangerous military powerhouse? And will Iran defeat Israel in the next round? Or will Turkey and Egypt eventually solve the Zionism problem? Israel Shamir has provocative thoughts on all this and more...

Excerpts from the interview:

Kevin Barrett: Welcome to Truth Jihad Audiovisual. I’m Kevin Barrett. I’ve been doing this show since 2006. And my current guest actually is somebody I’ve known since even before that: Israel Shamir. He was one of the few people back in 2005 who was willing to entertain the thought that 9/11 may not have been exactly what the US government told us. So that’s how we got acquainted. (Israel Shamir was one of the original endorsers of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth.) He’s been putting out a lot of really interesting perspectives ever since. So, hey, welcome, Israel Shamir. Great to have you back.

Hey, Kevin. Very nice to see you.

So you’ve been putting out this consistently interesting and provocative and unusually insightful work for a very long time. Let’s go ahead and remind the viewers where you’re coming from. You lived in Israel for a while. You came from a Jewish background out of Russia (and are now in Sweden). Maybe you could succinctly describe that.

So many travels, so many lifelong, full of travels and of movement. I remember what one of my American friends told me when I tried to answer this question. He told me that I noticed that whenever Jews describe something, they describe peripatetic existence. So apparently it is peripatetic, moving from place to place….

Let’s get started with the issue that you recently wrote about, which is Russia and the pressure that President Putin is under to enforce one of his red lines. And of course, Trump has now gotten his military to sign off on sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine. which would presumably be fired by Americans. These are technically nuclear-capable missiles with the range of getting well past Moscow, possibly crossing a very serious red line there. So what are your thoughts on how dangerous this is?

It could happen anytime. And I decided to make myself already prepared for it. Whatever happens, let it happen if it has to happen. Because it seemed to me that neocons surrounding the American president have really decided that they can go and brave every Russian move. They can force every red line that would be posted by the Russians. So in such case, sooner or later, it will maybe all blow up. But, you know, maybe Morocco will survive. So it’s a good thing about (your moving there). But as for Russia and the United States, I think it’s very difficult to say whether they will survive.

I recently wrote about the madman theory that was coined to describe Nixon deliberately trying to pretend he was crazy during the Vietnam war so the North Vietnamese would think he was capable of nuking them. And now we have Trump behaving quite erratically, although maybe no more erratically than the senile Biden did. So the Americans seem to be pushing this madman leadership theory pretty hard, whereas Putin seems to err on the opposite side of being almost too rational. Would you agree?

He is absolutely, yes. Putin seemed to be absolutely sane, a totally sane person. And many people in Russia say that he should really do more that would sow fear of Russia. But he apparently doesn’t want that. He’s a peaceful man.

I am actually pretty impressed with Putin’s competence, which is not something I can say about the American leadership. And maybe that’s because Russia, like China, is sort of on a historical upswing. China’s recovering from the 19th century, and Russia’s recovering from the immediate post-Cold War period in the 1990s. Whereas the United States is heading down. The United States has seemingly…there’s nowhere to go but down after largely ruling the world since World War II. But in terms of the Tomahawks issue, what would be the likely Russian response if Ukraine fired Tomahawk missiles at Russia?

Well, we enter into the unpredictable. It is the area of unpredictable. Some people think that they can predict the future, but I think that we can’t predict anything about it. So if Zelensky fires Tomahawks, it could be that Russians will fire back into Washington one of the Oreshniks or whatever other beautiful devices they have. Or into London. The possibilities are all open. And what will happen, nobody knows.

What do you think of Ron Unz’s suggestion that Russia could give NATO a warning that “this Friday at three o’clock in the afternoon, we’re going to blow up NATO headquarters with an unstoppable Oreshnik missile, so get everybody out of that area so that there are no casualties”? Would that work?

I remember that, I read this very funny article. No, I don’t think it’s realistic at all.

Why not?

I think it’s a very nice, very interesting idea, but I don’t think it could be realistic. I think if we go to bombing of Brussels, Moscow, or Washington, that just goes all the way.

We’re off to the races.

Yeah, no reason to stop.

Is there any other kind of demonstration that could ever be done that wouldn’t start that process?

No, I doubt it very much. Putin is being pushed all the time by different forces in the Russian government that want him to throw a nuclear bomb or to nuke something. But he doesn’t want to nuke anything. So, you know, I don’t think that something like that could be done. And I think the big problem, obviously, is that the neocons who are seemingly ruling America are suicidal. There’s not much that we can do about it. But if we speak about an overview and how they are going to explain things, I noticed that there is a very strong feeling among the writers in the Unz Review that we are coming now to some new American revolution, that they are likely to get rid of the neocons. Whether by the left forces, like the mayor of New York, Mamdani, or by the right wing forces, someone like Tucker Carlson. So I think there are possibilities that this or that will change and will save mankind, save the United States. Whereas Russia is, I think, an unmovable object. Something you can push anywhere. You shouldn’t really expect them to take the initiative because they don’t want to take the initiative.

Right. That was what I said, actually, right after the special military operations started. The Western side was high on its own supply at that time: “Oh, my goodness. Look, the Ukrainians just stopped Russia at the gates of Kiev and pushed them back.” They were all very happy and giddy, thinking that Russia’s economy would be destroyed and they could force regime change on Russia and knock it back to the 1990s. And my response at the time, the same thing I’ve been saying ever since, has been: This is an existential war for Russia, and Russia’s the biggest nuclear power on earth. And it will match whatever level of destruction that’s visited on it. It will go to whatever level is necessary not to lose. Because it’s existential for Russia in a way that it isn’t for the U.S. or for Europe…

Absolutely. I agree with you. Indeed, it is existential for Russia. For them, there is a necessity to keep some kind of hold on friendly Ukraine. But also the ex-Soviet republics are necessary, even such one as Moldova, which is not an especially big country, not especially powerful, probably as poor as anything at all in Europe, one of the poorest countries. But even it is necessary for Russian existence. The Russian Tsars and General Secretaries of the KPSU worked for centuries to build up this kind of defense. Because Russia is not separated from Europe by water, like Britain is, nor by mountains. It is just a huge, huge field. And on this field, Russians really should have friendly Ukraine, that’s for sure.

In your most recent article, which is “The Russian Regret,” you mentioned that the Trump policy of essentially pushing Europe to rearm and to increase its military spending as percentage of its GDP is a bad move. You argued that that’s going to turn Europe into a monster, that it will become independent of the US and it’ll start pushing its weight around. And you’re sort of implicitly raising the possibility of Europe being a threat to invade Russia, as has happened a few times in the past.

Yeah.

But I wonder if you’re not exaggerating that threat a little bit, in the same way, though maybe not as much, as the Europeans have exaggerated the non-existent Russian threat. Russia, of course, has more territory than it needs. It’s not going to invade Europe. But I’m not sure Western Europe is very likely to invade Russia either. It seems to me that maybe... Both sides need to realize that neither one is really in a position, ideologically or materially, to dream of conquering the other. So what are we fighting about?

Well, I agree with you absolutely. Indeed, there is no chance that Europe will succeed in conquering Russia, or Russia will succeed or even want to conquer Europe. Russia doesn’t want it. Russians in the past took over Berlin and Paris and moved back from there quite fast, actually. Didn’t want to keep it for a lot of money. There is a point of view in Russia that Russians should not keep any territory that is not populated by the Orthodox Christians. The religious question will drive in. So that’s why the non-Orthodox territories like Baltic Republic or Finland or Poland were given up by Russia on this or other stage because they thought it’s kind of impossible to fight over it. But Ukraine is orthodox, so it fits the bill.

And that brings up the issue of to the extent that this is actually a sort of disguised religious war. It seems that some of the fuel that’s causing this hysteria in Europe has to do with Europe’s obsession with… their notion of progress, Enlightenment progress, meaning LBGTQ and hyperliberalism. And Russia is moving away from progressivism and liberalism towards something more traditional. And that seems to drive the Europeans crazy for some reason.

Yes. Recently I read the articles that me and other people wrote many years before the Ukraine war. And I was absolutely amazed that so many years before the Ukraine war, European newspapers and magazines were already mad against Russia. Why? Because they mistreat homosexuals. Sounds to me absolutely crazy. First of all, it’s not even true. They don’t mistreat any homosexuals. But on the other hand, they don’t have gay parades and such things. But why should that be the reason for such excitement? I couldn’t understand it.

My son told me an interesting idea. There is an opinion that gay men are more susceptible, more playable, more easily manageable. They don’t have…kind of independence of character. They could be pushed to do whatever. So maybe that’s the case.

And I remember even during the Sochi Olympic Games many years ago. It was so strange to see that... British newspapers and American newspapers were so absolutely crazy about it with such a level of hostility. It was years before any war. It seemed to be calm. This question of why there is such intensity of hate towards Russia, I really can’t understand that at all.

(Read the full transcript by clicking “transcript” above the video image 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

If anyone should be able to convince people he’s crazy, it’s Donald “Very Stable Genius” Trump. The president’s long trail of bankruptcies, criminal and civil cases, and unhinged blurt-outs testify to his instability. So do his bipolar swings between peacenik platitudes and warmongering warnings, terrifying tariffs and reassuring rollbacks, magniloquent plans to do this soon forgotten in service to equally bombastically forgettable efforts to do that. As AJ Smuskiewicz puts it:

Everyone anxiously waits to hear what President Sybil, the deranged, delusional Caesar of the American Empire, is going to proclaim next . . .

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

Trump’s fanboys think it’s all an act. Trump is playing 3D chess! Every one of those seemingly crazy words and actions has been carefully weighed and serves a higher purpose whose almost infinitely complex reverberations are obscure to ordinary mortals. But the simpler explanation, of course, is that Trump is every bit as nuts as he appears. Smuskiewicz imagines Trump afflicted with some unique and fascinating mental illness:

With all of his psychological weirdness, Trump—if psychoanalysts could ever get him into a psychiatric clinic or research laboratory—would surely lead to the generation of hundreds of ground-breaking clinical research papers and numerous new medical textbooks.

But let’s not over-analyze. Bandy Lee and other shrinks have long since put “Diagnosable Don” on the couch and pinned him as a garden-variety narcissist whose tendencies towards sociopathy, paranoia, and impulsiveness make him the wrong guy to put in charge of anything, least of all a country.

Does Trump’s craziness have an upside? Well, it’s (darkly) entertaining. Between Trump and the even more criminally insane Zionists, I hardly have to write satire any more, since it pretty much writes itself.

Another conceivable advantage to having a stark-raving-bonkers commander-in-chief is that America’s opponents and enemies and negotiating partners never know what to expect. This, we are told, creates “strategic uncertainty.” Since they are so perplexed and terrified by the specter of an unpredictable lunatic in charge of the world’s most powerful country, people like Putin and Xi and Khamenei will surely back down and settle everything on Trump’s terms…won’t they?

Well…no. In FFWN’s featured story of the week, “Why Trump’s Madman Act Doesn’t Work,” Samuel Seitz and Caitlin Talmadge explain that Trump, like Nixon, isn’t getting the USA anywhere by posing (however credibly) as a lunatic. The authors explain:

Unsurprisingly, behaving erratically can create doubts about one’s intentions and demands…If a leader is consistently inconsistent, erratically changing tactics and reneging to squeeze out further concessions, negotiating partners have no incentive to concede. Indeed, they have strong reasons to stand firm. Successful negotiations require that both sides stick to their word. After all, as Reid Pauly notes, if a police officer says, “Stop or I’ll shoot,” you had better stop. But if she says, “Stop, though I may decide to shoot anyway,” you should probably be less inclined to obey.

Trump’s threats to send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine are unlikely to force Putin to settle the war on Ukraine’s terms. Putin is a rational actor, and he has no choice but to assume that the US, despite the antics of its erratic POTUS, is at least somewhat rational as well. He knows that the whole US leadership knows that victory in Ukraine is existential for Russia, but not for the US or the EU. So Russia will keep doing what it’s doing: grinding out a win. If Trump escalates irrationally, Putin will escalate rationally. Due to the “existential asymmetry,” the rational side has escalation dominance.

Israel and the Madman Theory

Though the madman theory hasn’t worked for Trump or Nixon, one nation has deployed it with at least temporary success: Israel. As former Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan put it, “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” By consistently engaging in over-the-top psychopathy, Israel and the Jewish nation it represents have hypnotized the world into letting them get away with murder…for awhile.

Israel’s national heroes are prison guards who anally rape people to death, snipers who shoot children for sport, spy chiefs who vaunt their worldwide terror campaigns, child-abusing rabbis who incite genocide by lying outrageously, fanatics who revel in torturing innocent humans and even animals. Israel also killed the Kennedys, probably killed Charlie Kirk, orchestrated 9/11, and is still committing the world’s first live-streamed genocide. Everyone paying attention knows Israel and its partisans are criminally insane. But the majority is not paying attention. So the myth of Jewish victimhood continues to bamboozle the world, and the psychopathic tribe accelerates its crime spree.

Ben Gurion, JFK’s suspected murderer, thought it was worth taking the risk of killing the American president to ensure Israel’s access to nuclear weapons. Only through the Samson Option, he and other Israeli leaders have imagined, can Israel survive—and keep killing people and stealing their property—in a hostile region and increasingly hostile world. (Gee, I wonder why they’re all so hostile? Must be antisemitism.)

But Israel’s “madman theory” threat to blow up cities if it ever faces defeat faces the same credibility problems that Reid and Pauly analyze with respect to Donald Trump and Richard Nixon. Israel is a very small country, with fewer than ten million people on less than 9,000 square miles of territory. It would not survive a nuclear exchange, or even a non-state-actor’s WMD attack (causing Zionists to flee like rats). The other side of the exchange would survive.

The criminally insane Zionists have dug their own graves by convincing the region, and the world, that Israel is indeed a mad dog—fit only for being put out of its misery as soon as the opportunity arises.

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

Jason Farago, who appears to be a Deep State propagandist and pro-UkroNazi culture warrior, just published a New York Times interactive photo-video piece headlined “How Lunar Photography Brought the Heavens Down to Earth.” Farago celebrates the alleged artistic genius of the Apollo moon photos, viewing them as the climax of the overlapping artistic and scientific histories of moon explorations and representations.

Moon landing skeptic and professional photographer Massimo Mazzucco says that’s b******t. Farago’s extravagant praise of the Apollo astronauts’ brilliant use of deep depth of field just means they knew how to crank the f-stop up to f16 or f32 (which I figured out about five seconds after buying the cheapest available Pentax when I was a journalism student back in 1976). His orgasmic effusions about the beautifully-rendered lunar surface texture sound like something an LSD tripper might say while staring hypnotically at the ground in some godforsaken stretch of barren desert. And his ranting about how many of the moon landing photos are so perfectly composed and executed that they look totally fake really takes the cake:

“The photographs were in fact so good—and the 70mm stock so detailed—that doubts set in on the blue sphere below. With their rich chiaroscuro and starless skies, Bean and Conrad’s photos looked uncannily like a Hollywood stage set.”

Uncannily indeed. Is Farago engaging in classic neocon doublespeak (surface layer for the ignorant rubes, esoteric layer for the cognoscenti)? Is he nudging and winking at the cognoscenti in a shared moment of dupers’ delight? Was this assignment handed out by the Deep State desk at the New York Times to blow smoke to cover for delays in the Artemis missions? Or is Mazzucco wrong in his claims that many moon landing photos are obviously fake, and that the most likely explanation of these and other anomalies is that the Apollo missions didn’t really put men on the moon circa 1969-1972?

Watch Mazzucco deconstruct bad New York Times propaganda, watch his film American Moon, and make up your own mind.

Excerpts from the Interview

Welcome to a special edition of False Flag Weekly News, the weekly news show that normally peels back the news headlines to reveal what’s crawling around underneath. Today we are going to be interrogating the perhaps most influential newspaper in the Western world, The New York Times, by way of a special art and science uh photo analysis that they did discussing the moon landing photos from the Apollo missions. And who better to talk back to the media on that subject than Massimo Mazzucco? He is the director of September 11th: The New Pearl Harbor, possibly the best and most comprehensive 9/11 documentary film, as well as American Moon, probably the best film about the moon landing. So, hey, congratulations on making the best conspiracy films in two genres.

Thank you. It’s not for me to say they’re the best. I can certainly say they’re the longest. Because September 11th: The New Pearl Harbor is five hours and the American Moon is three and a half.

Well, that’s what I meant by comprehensive. I was trying to be nice. (laughter)

Okay. Okay. Let me just clarify very quickly. There’s a reason for that. I don’t like to entertain people more than is needed, except that for both films, I use the technique where I first present the problems or the issues (with the official stories). Then I present the explanations or answers that the debunkers have for each of those issues. And then I present the debunking of the debunkers. So each argument, each issue, is presented from three times: The presentation (of holes in the official stories), what the debunkers say about it, and what I have to say about what they say.

There’s a term that David Ray Griffin coined first. It’s called debunking the debunkers. And that’s why I like to have it all in one film, all comprehensive, both questions and answers. And then people can make up their own mind, of course.

Yeah, it’s a great format. And honestly, I think they’re the best as well as the most comprehensive films, partly because of that format. And we’re going to follow that type of format here too, because we’re going to see what the New York Times says about these images. And then you get to say what you have to say about them. And unfortunately, we don’t have the New York Times here to answer you, so we’ll just have to leave it at that.

Let’s look at our slideshow. We’re going to do a close read on this New York Times photo exhibit. Here’s their opening shot. They’re really ecstatic about the artistic quality of the moon landing photos. And in a couple of places, they actually mention that it looks almost suspicious. These photos are almost too good to be true. What do you think, Max?

I don’t think they’re good at all. No, I have to tell you…maybe your audience doesn’t know. I have been a photographer for the first part of my life, let’s say between age 20 and 40.. And I was a professional, at the top level. I was working for magazines all over the world. I was using actually the same cameras and film and lighting that supposedly were used in the Apollo missions.

I’ll give you one quick anecdote so you understand the point of view of a professional. I learned my trade from a famous photographer, now deceased. He just passed away a few months ago. His name was Oliviero Toscani. He’s actually the guy who made the Benton campaign all over the world. He was very, very famous. I would put him in the top 10 in the world history of fashion photography. I was his assistant for about three years. Then we parted ways. I went on to have my own career.

Back in 2000, when I saw the lunar pictures for the first time—all of them, not just the few that were published before, but all of them that were put out by NASA on the internet—I looked at them and I could see all the defects that I would find myself when I tried to replicate sunlight in the studio. So I got very suspicious. I called Toscani and I said, “Oliviero, what did you think the first time you saw the Apollo moon pictures?” And his answer was, and I quote him:

“I always thought that had they given me the job, I would have done a much better job.”

Wow, better than Neil Armstrong! Because you’re going to see how the New York Times praises Neil Armstrong (as a photographer)…Okay, so they begin with this poetic passage: “The darkness we expected. What we had underestimated was the silence, the quiet of the vacuum, disturbed only by our breath and the radio in our ears.” So that’s supposedly these Air Force guys, these astronauts. You think that they hired a literary guy…

There’s a problem. These astronauts were wearing what is called the PLSS, the Portable Life Support System, which provides them with both a cooling system for the body—because you have over 100 degree Celsius temperature on the surface of the moon—and air for breathing.

So in the back of the PLSS, you have these pumps that are supposed to be both circulating water and pushing air through the system so that you can actually breathe. Except when you listen to their conversations, there’s absolutely no noise. There’s no noise whatsoever.

No wonder they underestimated the silence.

Yeah, exactly. Because you’re in a studio when nobody is making a sound. That’s why you hear all the silence. If you had those machines really on, you would hear probably a purring in the back of your ear. You would hear of these pumps working. Nothing of that is ever heard in their conversations.

In the opening picture, that light tells me that is a studio spotlight facing straight into the camera. It is not the sunlight. The sunlight acts differently. With the kind of lenses that they had, the kind of distortion that you would have inside the lens is much different than that. That, to me, tells me that that is a spotlight facing straight into the camera and making it look like the sun.

Another thing that you can tell is what is called the fall-off. You have a major amount of light coming through the center of the picture, straight in line with the sun. But off to the sides, if you look at the edge of the crater on the middle of the right of the picture, you can see that the more you go away to the right, the darker the ground gets. If this was the sun, you would have illumination that is equal all over the sand. In this case, you can tell that it is degrading towards darkness as you move to the right, and that is because that is the spotlight. It’s not the actual sun.

So here’s one where they say it’s a shockingly well-composed picture.

Yeah. I think they’re trying to influence the viewer by using all these words, shocking and beauty and all that. There’s absolutely nothing shocking in this picture.

“The lunar module’s eagle’s leg is near dead center. A bag of waste is perfectly jettisoned to one side.” So maybe they’re telling us it’s all a bag of waste. I don’t know.

How do you imperfectly jettison?

Yeah I’ve jettisoned a lot of waste in my life but I can’t tell the perfect from the imperfect myself. But the New York Times, they’re critics. They know this stuff.

Yeah.

Do you see anything suspicious about this image?

I do but it would be a little too long to explain. Again there’s a fall off. But it’s very mild because they lowered the contrast. So I can tell that there is more light right below the LEM in the center left of the picture, it is brighter than on the far right. But it’s a very, very mild difference because the contrast is very low.So you can’t really tell here. Only a professional can tell.

The New York Times tells us: “During their camera training it became evident that Armstrong had a better eye than Buzz Aldrin…” Which meant he was the one taking most of the pictures for Apollo 11 in 1969…took more than 100 photographs. And the New York Times guy says: “I would happily claim, in fact, that Armstrong authored one of the last century’s signal works of American portraiture, his head-on view of Aldrin, legs contrapposto like a Greek statue in the southwest of the Sea of Tranquility.” Wow.

I would suggest we look at something else in this picture rather than read the caption. And the fact is that Aldrin, the person allegedly pictured in the photograph, is inside a little crater which is based maybe 10 centimeters lower than the average surface. And if you look at the way the photo is taken we can see the top of the helmet. Now remember the camera is allegedly sitting on Armstrong’s chest. So it should be at the same height, basically, as where the hand of Aldrin is, just a little higher. It would be impossible if I shot from my chest, even though the guy is in a little bit of a vacuum. It’s a small, it’s a little lower than the surface, but only like 10 centimeters. I cannot see the top of his head. So this picture is taken from a much higher viewing point than the actual chest of the photographer.

Could he have been on a little hill or something?

He could have except there was none. It’s all flat. They’re all basically on the same surface. If you look at other pictures of the situation it’s really all pretty much flat. And it’s one curious thing. You cannot prove that the pictures are fake. But again I can see now that the New York Times has used...a corrected set of pictures not the original ones. In the original ones, the original scans that were made from the original negatives, the contrast is much higher, and you can tell very, very easily that the guy allegedly being Aldrin is sitting in a spotlight. All around him, if you turn back the contrast to the way it was originally, before it was manipulated, you could tell that Aldrin is inside of a circle of more light, and that’s where the spotlight hits, as opposed to the background. The background, as soon as you lower...the contrast gets much darker than the ground he is standing on. And that should not be happening, if the source light were the sun.

I can’t believe the New York Times would be manipulating these pictures.

They’re not manipulating them themselves. They’re using a set of manipulated pictures that have been circulated by NASA, which are not original, but of course where the problems are less evident.

And here it says that’s our photographer reflected in Aldrin’s gold visor and one of the only still images of Armstrong on the moon. And so they zoom in and show the photographer reflected in the visor.

Yes. Well I mean that could be anybody of course. One wonders why would Armstrong, the first man on the moon, not have any pictures of himself? I mean you organize such a precise, such an accurate trip to the moon, where every detail is scheduled and laid down. They have papers with: “1005 turn around. 10010 breathe again.” I mean, everything is scheduled. And then they forget to take pictures of the first man on the moon. And we only have pictures of Aldrin. Could it possibly be that Armstrong, who did not want to be manipulated more than necessary, did deny them the right to say that that was him? Just remember, of the first man of the moon we have no pictures except one shot where you can actually see his face a little bit through the visor. And all the others it’s Aldrin. It’s very strange…they forget that you should schedule an actual photo up for the first man on the moon.It’s shocking. It goes together with the fact that they lost the original tape of the first moonwalk.

And of course their claim is that Armstrong was such a good photographer that he got to take all the pictures.

It doesn’t take a good photographer to take those pictures. They have the camera strapped on the chest.All they have to do is set the F-stop to focus the diaphragm, the lens opening the iris. And press click. They’re not even aiming, because they have the camera strapped to the chest. So all these shots that are well composed are actually a stroke of luck. Because you cannot see inside. You don’t have a viewer. You don’t have the viewfinder in that situation. So they’re really aiming by moving their shoulders. And guess what? All the pictures are so perfectly centered. Which is a little suspicious.

And here we see that Alan Bean and Pete Conrad of Apollo 12 are apparently even better photographers from the chest than Neil Armstrong is. These are even more “extraordinary.” And there were a total of 583 photos allegedly taken by Alan Bean and Pete Conrad of Apollo 12.

There’s absolutely nothing (extraordinary). What’s so incredible about this, is it is a set. All you need to do is sit there, focus and click. I mean there’s no artistry. The very idea that you’re looking for artistry...

Well, the horizon is horizontal.

The horizon is horizontal. And there are no hills in the distance, by the way. If you take what’s called the 360 panoramic of the whole, you turn around, you just stand there and turn around, click click click. And then they join them all together and you have a 360.

This landscape is like 200 yards not even in every direction. There’s no hills anywhere in the distance. Only after Apollo 15 did they realize that their sets were so skimpy that they had to add mountains in the distance. Apollos 11, 12 and 14 had a very very short horizon like this. I mean very short. And if you think that that object on the left was put there by a man, it means that the distance from here to there is maybe 20 yards. So you have another 20 yards and then what’s the end of the moon? There’s nothing else.

Yeah, that’s a pretty flat moon.

Look! The shadow of the LEM reaches almost the end of the moon. There’s no distance. I mean, think! You’re in a desert. You have to picture yourself in a desert with a LEM and imagine there’s nothing behind that little hill. There’s nothing. You can see nothing. It’s a joke. This is clearly a set. And besides, because of the use of the wide angle, this actually looks larger than it was in reality. In reality this set is no more than 10 meters by 10 meters, 30 feet by 30 maybe. That’s about it.

We’re told that they were “tasked with creating panoramas, 360-degree views that would establish when pieced together back home the context of their scientific research.” Then in the New York Times presentation it shows you the 360-degree panorama. Here’s the theme of the whole piece: “In one-sixth gravity, art and science did not seem so far apart.” They’re trying to tell us that the amazing artistry of these photos is some hybrid of art and science.

I really fail to see any artistry at all in these pictures. I’m sorry. I mean I know enough about good photography. Not only have I been a professional photographer for 25 years but I have enjoyed photography. I loved it. I know the great photographers, from Ansel Adams to Karsh. There’s a lot of history of photography that I can recognize. And I tell you what is an artistic picture. I see absolutely nothing artistic about these at all.

You’re not going to add Neil Armstrong to the list of great photographers…

Okay, here again the astronaut reflected in the visor, the little guy in the middle of the picture: On his right, our left, the terrain is much darker than on his left, our right. The sun is on the side. It should be equally illuminating both sides of his background. It is not. That means that is a spotlight that centers on him and it’s illuminating more the right-hand side from the way we see it than the left. That’s called an oopsie.

Interestingly, they chose this picture to tell us that it’s so good that it looks like a Hollywood stage set. This reminds me of Douglas Rushkoff’s Coercion, which describes mind control techniques that are common to operators from CIA interrogators to used car salesmen. And he describes how the key to mind control is to basically break down the subject’s sense of reality. And the way they do that is: the used car salesman takes you for a test drive. And at just the right point in the test drive he kind of turns to you while you’re driving the car and he says: “Is this the kind of car that you can see yourself driving?”And you try to see yourself driving the car that you actually are driving, and you have a sort of a brain fart. You have this space-out moment and lose contact with reality. And the car salesman then just takes over your world and orders you to drive back to the dealership. And he doesn’t ask you, do you want coffee? He just forces you to drink coffee, brings out the contract, and you walk out with the new car. And the CIA does a similar thing when they interrogate you. And so anyway, in this example, they’re inoculating you against the idea that this is a stage set by telling us it looks so good that it almost looks like it could be a stage set.

This is not the best picture of a footprint. But you can tell even from this picture—look how sharp and how...how sturdy, how solid are the little (rectangles of “moon sand”) that look like chocolate bars imprinted in the sand. Remember, there’s no atmosphere. Therefore there’s no humidity. Therefore that sand should be falling apart as soon as you remove your foot. How can you make it stick in such precise shapes without the humidity on earth?

Maybe they brought a little aerosol spray can and some gluey substance.

Exactly. You need humidity to get sand to stick like that. And there’s no humidity on the moon.

***

(For the full transcript, click “transcript” above the video image 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 all 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 FFWN Link

If your business model involves marginalizing people by calling them names—and requires you to terrorize your funders with the specter of an exponentially-growing number of “antisemites” who need to be marginalized and insulted, leading you to deliberately set about pissing off more and more people—you will eventually reach a point of diminishing returns. Once you have marginalized the majority, it’s no longer on the margins. Once everybody’s antisemitic, nobody’s antisemitic. The magical word no longer commands its magic. It’s time to call it a day and find a new gig.

The Anti-Defamation League is fast reaching that point. And it isn’t just people like me, who have been on the receiving end of numerous ADL fatwas, who are saying it. Their supporters are saying it too.

A few weeks ago the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal published “Can the Anti-Defamation League Be Saved? What the decline of the nation’s oldest antisemitism-fighting org says about the future of Jewish politics.” The author, Jesse Arm, a Tel Aviv University dropout, argues that the ADL’s “anti-hate” strategy has backfired:

Had antisemitism itself remained a peripheral prejudice, that evolution might merely have been disappointing. But anti-Jewish hate has surged since October 7, 2023, in the form of civil terrorism, street violence, targeted attacks, and the mainstreaming of conspiratorial figures on both left and right. The ADL’s approach—count incidents, denounce them, offer a free trip to the Holocaust museum—has proved worse than useless in response.

Ironically, Arm’s prescription for Making the ADL Great Again is worse than “worse than useless”:

The old ADL model—rooted in law-enforcement partnerships, deterrence, and unapologetic civic defense—is the most obvious answer. The job of a serious defense organization is to make it dangerous to menace Jews…

In other words, Arm wants transform the ADL from a supposedly anti-hate organization to an openly pro-hate organization. He hopes to reinvent the ADL as a terrorist outfit infiltrating law enforcement in the same way that other organized crime groups do. He wants to cross out the A and reinvent the group as a rebranded JDL, or Jewish Defense League, a terrorist group implicated in numerous murders and arsons. (By openly trying to “make it dangerous to menace Jews,” the JDL earned itself a terrorist label from the US Department of Justice and was forced to curtail its activities.)

But Arm is correct that terrorism and organized crime was “the old ADL model.” For an uncensored history of the organization, a good place to start is Ron Unz’s “The ADL in American Society,” which pulls no punches in exposing the dark underbelly of a supposedly liberal philanthropic organization.

Did the ADL’s criminal activity ever end? It was certainly in high gear in the 1990s. Unz reminds us:

In January 1993, the San Francisco Police Department reported that it had recently raided the Northern California headquarters of the ADL based upon information provided by the FBI. The SFPD discovered that the organization had been keeping intelligence files on more than 600 civic organizations and 10,000 individuals, overwhelmingly of a liberal orientation, with the SFPD inspector estimating that 75% of the material had been illegally obtained, much of it by secret payments to police officials.

Arm wants us to believe that the ADL suddenly went from bribing cops and keeping files on liberals (obviously in order to terrorize them) to embracing liberalism and limiting its activities to gently wagging its finger at “antisemites” while politely urging them to visit their nearest Holocaust (TM) museum. But since the organization never suffered any serious consequences from the revelation of its criminal activities in San Francisco, which were obviously the tip of a vast iceberg of similar activities across all of North America, it seems much more likely that the finger-wagging and Holocaust-museum-hyping has always been window dressing covering the sordid reality of the ADL’s ongoing criminal pursuits.

So Arm isn’t really telling the ADL to become a criminal, terrorist group. It already is one, and he knows it. Instead, he’s suggesting, the ADL and allied groups should stop pretending to be anything other than terrorists and criminals. That way, he imagines, they will be able to openly terrorize people into loving the Jews—or keeping their mouths shut if they don’t.

But will that really work? Armstrong thinks so. He claims the problem is that Jews are being too nice to their enemies:

A recent episode at a Barstool Sports-owned bar in Philadelphia illustrates the point. Patrons ordering bottle service can ask staff to arrange a light-up letter board with a custom message—usually something tame, like “Go Birds.” But on one night in May, a customer instead asked for a “F*** the Jews” sign, and the staff obligingly held it up as he chanted the curse on video.

Barstool’s founder and president, Dave Portnoy—himself Jewish—fired the employees on the spot. Then, after talking to the usual polite, center-left professional antisemitism consultants, he offered the culprits an all-expenses-paid trip to Auschwitz. Within a day, one of them pivoted to denial and self-victimization, and Portnoy rescinded the offer. The man has since reinvented himself as a full-time online antisemite.

Arm apparently believes that Mo Khan, one of the students involved in the “F*** the Jews” prank, reacted badly to Portnoy’s overweening arrogance, humorlessness, vindictiveness, and poor-me-I’m-such-a-victim crocodile tears, because Portnoy was so kind and sweet and generous as to offer Khan an all-expenses-paid trip to Auschwitz (after much flailing around firing people and threatening to destroy their lives). If Portnoy had just threatened to shoot Khan in the head, or burn down his house, or rape and murder his family members, and then carried through on his threats, that would have solved the problem, right? After all, that approach is working brilliantly in Gaza.

The whole Dave-Portnoy-vs.-Mo-Khan spectacle went viral not because Portnoy was too nice, but because he is so obviously such a smug, entitled, obnoxious, genocidal a*****e who is the living, breathing definition of “can’t take a joke.” Arm, and a whole lot of other smug, entitled, obnoxious, genocidal Jews, apparently can’t take a joke either.

That kind of arrogant humorlessness didn’t used to feature so prominently in the Jewish character. Groucho Marx’s illustrious film career, highlights of which came at the expense of an exquisite dowager named Margaret Dumont, amounted to one long “F*** the WASPs” middle finger directed at America’s then-most-powerful ethnic group.

Prior to World War II, i.e. during their pre-hegemonic period, Jews hurled symbolic projectiles, not all of them as witty as Groucho’s, at the ruling WASPs. But today, the goyim are not allowed to poke fun at their Jewish overlords. “F*** the Jews” is considered obscene not because it contains the F-word, but because it juxtaposes it with the J-word. We are no longer allowed to notice who rules us.

Jewish power works best under-the-radar. The more it shows itself by attacking those who notice or question it, the more inevitable the blowback. And the harsher the Jewish attacks on the noticers and questioners, the more people notice and question—and are turned off by the Tribe’s bloody Shylockian vindictiveness.

Groucho Marx was hilarious with his “F*** the WASPs” message. Dave Portnoy is almost equally hilarious when he goes completely bananas every time anybody says, or alludes to, “F*** the Jews.” That’s why everywhere Portnoy goes, he gets dogged by pranksters intoning the evil three words.

Jesse Arm, like Portnoy, comes across as a humorless, genocidal, tribally-narcissistic putz who has apparently been driven borderline-insane by the escalating tendency of internet-savvy young people to notice certain all-too-obvious facts about social reality. His response—terrorize the b******s into liking us!—just doubles down on the exact same brand of blindness that made Dave “fire the antisemites and destroy their lives” Portnoy an object of laughter and loathing.

Arm’s message to the Tribe—no more Mr. Nice Guy, let’s openly terrorize anyone who questions us—may be funny, but it’s also ominous. As Andrew Anglin notes, Israel’s assassination of Charlie Kirk wasn’t just payback and a warning to other paid Zio-propagandists who might consider wandering off the reservation. More subtly, it set the stage for a Trumpian authoritarian crackdown on dissidents in general and anti-Zionists in particular. Anglin summarizes:

Basically, every MAGA person is now calling for a police state. Further, they demand much more extreme censorship than Democrats ever called for. Whereas Joe Biden secretly communicated with social media companies, ordering them to censor things he did not like, the Trump Administration is openly threatening to use the power of government to silence people. Pam Bondi, who is a really dumb b***h, is saying she is going to start arresting people “on both sides” for “hate speech,” something which is not only not illegal, but which the Supreme Court has repeatedly said does not exist and cannot exist in America…

Meanwhile, Trump has taken to using comic book villain rhetoric about “an invasion from within” as he releases the military onto the streets for unclear purposes…. Citing Kirk’s death, James “JD Vance” Bowman is talking about retraining law enforcement to focus on political enemies of the president…Within the context of this new war against political “enemies within,” Trump is talking about using American cities as training grounds for the US military….The only explanation as to why they would choose these terror raids, choose to release the military, I asserted, is that they are not actually trying to remove every immigrant one by one, but rather trying to get people used to the idea of military and militarized police on the streets throwing random people into vans.

So Jesse Arm’s recommendation of abandoning persuasion and resorting to threats and violence to terrorize “antisemites” (defined as people who don’t like genocide) may be less about rebranding the ADL or reviving the JDL than about burning the Bill of Rights and turning the US into a Trumpian dictatorship run by bloodthirsty Jewish oligarchs. Another American Reichstag Fire, building on Israel’s 9/11 false flag, and following up on Israel’s Charlie Kirk assassination, could lead to cancelation of elections, an openly imperial presidency, a permanently suspended Constitution, and mass roundups of people that Peter Thiel’s algorithm has fingered as pro-Palestine or anti-genocide. That scenario would amount to a controlled demolition of the American experiment.

Will “Israel,” the criminal fake state that fronts for global organized Jewry, succeeds in completing its ongoing destruction of America? Or have so many people become “antisemitic” that they couldn’t build enough camps to hold them?

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 all 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 TheUntamedTruth.com

Conservative Colorado-based podcaster Joe Oltmann has drawn fire from the media for questioning election integrity in general and black box voting machines in particular. He’s right about that issue, and several others as well. -KB

Joe Oltman’s write-up: The government shutdown has dragged on for 16 relentless days, and the turmoil in Washington shows no signs of easing. From jaw-dropping Democrat ultimatums to court rulings freeing violent offenders with mere probation, the headlines are bursting with issues that hit every American where it hurts. Today, we slice through the madness, delivering raw, unvarnished truth about the D.C. power plays—and what they mean for you, your loved ones, and our country. Expect bold insights, startling revelations, and practical takeaways the mainstream media dares not touch.

Joining us is our special guest, Dr. Kevin Barrett, a seasoned journalist, author, and global media voice, ready to tackle the nation’s most pressing questions. From the fragile Israel-Hamas ceasefire to the tangled web of foreign influence gripping U.S. leaders, Dr. Barrett unpacks the hidden stories elites work to bury. Prepare for an intense exploration of geopolitics, election integrity, and the forces molding our world—and why every viewer needs to grasp their impact. This is your chance to hear the unfiltered reality.

We’re also diving into critical domestic crises—ICE enforcement breakdowns in Chicago, illegal immigration turmoil, and the unyielding battle against government corruption. Plus, we’re arming you with real steps to fight back, including joining our fax blast to Congress to demand accountability and overhaul. This isn’t just a news rundown—it’s a meeting place for awareness, action, and empowerment. Tune in today, because the fate of our republic hinges on citizens who won’t be silenced!

Read the full transcript by clicking “transcript” above the video image at my Substack.

”

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

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link

The Zionists are obviously waging war on Palestine. It’s a war of extermination—a genocide—and always has been, since there obviously could never be a “Jewish state” in Palestine without the forced disappearance of the Palestinian people. Unfortunately for the Zionists, the Palestinians stubbornly refuse to disappear.

The Zionist war on Palestine is also, of necessity, a war on the entire MENA region. That, too, is inevitable, since the region’s people support their Palestinian brothers and sisters—and recognize that the endlessly-expansionist Greater Israel project is coming for them next.

Given the difficulties of subduing Palestine and MENA, the Zionists also have no choice but to wage another war: an all-out but covert and deniable war on the West. They need to control the commanding heights of the US and Europe, hijack the West’s military and economic power, and use it against the Palestinians and MENA.

The Zionist war to control the West’s commanding heights is not entirely bloodless. It has featured a long list of assassinations and terrorist attacks, including the Kennedy assassinations and 9/11.

But it’s mainly a propaganda war. Its enemy is truth—one might even say reality. Its weapons are lies, big and small, sometimes plausible and sometimes laughable.

9/11, of course, was a very big lie, like the ones Hitler discussed in Mein Kampf:

…in the primitive simplicity of their minds (the masses) more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

Sometimes people tell small lies by invoking alleged health issues. A few days ago Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu avoided testifying in his corruption trial by citing a persistent cough:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu complained of a cough and a cold during his testimony under cross-examination in the Tel Aviv District Court on Wednesday morning, leading the judges to agree to his request to truncate the hearing. (Times of Israel)

Social media wags suggested he should have gone all the way and invoked “The Holocough”—the ultimate excuse for Jews.

When I heard about Netanyahu’s holocough, I remembered Larry Silverstein’s dermatology appointment. Silverstein, who confessed on national television to being party to a decision to “pull” World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11, was known to eat breakfast every morning in the Windows to the World restaurant at the top of the North Tower. But on September 11, 2001, as Silverstein was leaving the house, his wife reminded him that he had a dermatology appointment. (Were the reptilian scales starting to show through? David Icke wants to know!) Miraculously, a random, barely-remembered dermatology appointment saved Silverstein from being blown to kingdom come…and provided an implausible excuse for behavior betraying foreknowledge of the worst crime ever committed on American soil.

But since all of us have told little lies about health issues—for example, I once skipped school in third grade by claiming not to have recovered from a cold—it’s easy to understand that Netanyahu and his close friend Silverstein might very well have done things like that. But lying outrageously about murderous events like September 11 and October 7, and using those lies to convince the world that the heroes are really the villains and vice versa, is so extreme that most people just can’t wrap their minds around the audacity of such “large-scale falsehoods.”

And speaking of large-scale falsehoods: The Ziomedia lie that Hamas is a bunch of sadistic rapists, while Israelis are nice well-behaved hyper-civilized eternal victims, took another hit this week as the words and physical and mental condition of released captives on both sides told precisely the opposite story. Palestinians showed signs, and told stories, of the unspeakable tortures they routinely experience in Israeli captivity, while most Israelis held by Hamas described kind and courteous treatment:

Omri Miran, 48, a father of two and shiatsu massage therapist, was held in 23 different places in Gaza, above ground and in tunnels, according to his brother Nadav. “Sometimes he would cook food for his captors, and they loved his cooking,” Nadav told the Ynet news site. “He knew exactly what the date was and roughly what day it was. He knew exactly how many days he was in captivity. They spent most of their days playing cards with their captors.” (The Guardian)

This time there were no female prisoners to disabuse Israelis of their “Hamas rape” fantasies, because Hamas had released all female captives during previous prisoner swaps. (Video link.)

One female Israeli captive, it turned out, once did accuse Hamas of “eyeball rape”:

“There is a terrorist looking at you 24/7, looking, raping you with his eyes,” she said.

Back home in Israel, she quickly got raped, and not with eyes, by her gym instructor. It turned out she had been “safer when she was with Hamas.”

That’s hardly surprising, given that Israel is the only nation that holds gigantic “right to rape” protests, makes national heroes out of people who rape captives to death with sticks, and has a male population 60% of whom believe it’s fine to rape women as long as you are acquainted with them. Yet because Zionist-loyal Jews dominate the media, the gullible Western public has been force-fed the big lie that the Rapist Nation is the victim.

But controlling the narrative isn’t the same as controlling reality itself. To do that, you need someone like Uri Geller, the famous Israeli Mossad-linked spoon-bender who uses psychokinesis (PK) to directly affect the material world.

Unfortunately for the Zionists, Geller’s powers, however well they work with cutlery, aren’t up to reshaping large-scale reality. Geller and his team of Israeli PK specialists apparently couldn’t create an actual al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center, so more conventional techniques had to be employed to create that illusion. They couldn’t conjure up evil golems dressed in Hamas outfits, so the IDF had to murder hundreds of its own civilians with tanks and helicopter gunships on October 7, while the real Hamas heroes scored the military raid of the century. And they couldn’t cause Trump to drop dead of an apparent (Hamas-attributed) insider attack during the US president’s recent peace conference at Sharm El Sheikh, as Geller had floated shortly before that event.

Ultimately, Zionism epitomizes cosmic chutzpah. Like other millenarian-messianic movements, it imagines itself capable of completely rebuilding or repairing the world (tikkun olam) from the ground up. The world as we know it—an evil, terrible world, dominated by goyim who for no discernible reason insist on persecuting Jews—can be miraculously transformed into a paradise in which every Jew has 2800 goyim slaves. All we have to do is blow up the Al-Aqsa Mosque, build a blood sacrifice temple, invite the Messiah to move in, and—hey presto—the spoon will be bent!

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 all 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

Rasheed Muhammad of the Redpill Diaries interviewed me last night about Trump, Gaza, the decline of US empire, and more. The conversation begins:

Rasheed Muhammad: Let’s jump right into it, Professor. I hear a lot of people talking about Trump, and some people think I jump on Trump, but I’ve been giving the business to Biden and Obama and everybody else too. But these people seem to think that Trump is a little bit different and that he’s trying to. change course for America and that he has no connection with the Jewish elite. I know that you know a little bit about his history, his start and his funders. Would you please tell us a little bit about his connections and how he made his money and his connections with the Jewish or the Zionists, I should say, for YouTube’s sake, the Zionist power brokers?

Kevin Barrett: This is a good time to talk about that, because he just gave that speech to the Knesset in Israel just yesterday. And you have to see it to believe it. The part about Miriam Adelson—she was there in the Israeli Knesset. And so he singled her out, and basically said that she and her husband had these huge bank accounts, “$60 billion in the bank. Not bad, Miriam. And with that money, you bought me, basically. And Sheldon, he gave me hundreds of millions of dollars. And so he would come to the White House. And I’d say, no, you can’t just come to the White House any time of day and expect to get in. That’s not how it works. But I’d let him in anyway.”

Then he goes on and says that Miriam Adelson is more loyal to Israel than the United States. He says, “Miriam, I don’t want to embarrass you, but I asked you which you were more loyal to and you wouldn’t answer me. And I took that to mean Israel.” I mean, it’s like a comedy routine. I think it’s really just Trump’s stream of consciousness. He resents being a slave of the Chosenites at some level, maybe partly unconsciously. But he enjoys the perks that come with it, being a billionaire or fake billionaire or whatever.

(Read the full transcript at my Substack by clicking “transcript” above the video image.)

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.

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

Has US President Donald Trump finally surpassed all of his predecessors since Eisenhower in getting “mad dog Israel” under control? Or are the man and the dog definitely working together?

Before considering those questions, please note that mad dog Israel is not an antisemitic trope, but an openly announced strategy. Moshe Dayan, Israel’s most celebrated general, memorably formulated his nation’s central doctrine: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” Through insanely reckless violence—the systematic weaponization of rape and torture, the genocide of Gaza, the terrorist pager attack on Lebanon, the unprovoked attack on Iran, the deliberate targeted slaughter of hundreds of journalists, the bombing of US base hosting Qatar, the public execution of Charlie Kirk, and an apparent foiled terror attack on the United Nations all being recent examples—the Zionists imagine that their tiny nation of seven million officially Israeli Jews backed by a few million sayanim agents infiltrating Western countries can somehow stave off their inevitable expulsion from Stolen Palestine.

The Israeli mad dog has been terrorizing the United States for generations. It has ripped out Uncle Sam’s throat and then devoured his heart twice—first on November 22, 1963, then again on September 11, 2001. Most sensible people would agree that a dog like that needs to be put down, not chained up.

Yet many seemingly sensible folks are voicing hopes that Donald Trump has finally looped a choke-chain around the neck of Netanyahu. Jeffrey Sachs seems to think that Trump’s flawed 20-point plan could become the basis for a viable one: The rapid and complete implementation of the long-dormant “two-state solution” featuring the creation of official Palestine including all territory stolen by the Zionists in 1967. That would require the US to get “Israel” under control in a way that it has not since the 1950s.

Writing in The Guardian, Mohamad Bazzi claims that Trump “strong-armed” Netanyahu. The Washington Post credited Trump’s “pressure” with forcing the deal on a reluctant Israel. The Atlantic says Trump “pushed” Israel. Haaretz‘s Aluf Binn says Trump “imposed” the deal on Israel and that “Now Military Aid to Israel Is His Target”:

The mass killing and destruction wrought by Israel in the Gaza Strip after Hamas’ attack on October 7 did not particularly interest Trump until Netanyahu attacked Qatar. At that moment, the wind changed direction. Attacking a country that bought him his presidential plane and which hosts the largest American base in the Middle East exceeded the limits of the freedom of action Washington afforded Israel. At that moment, the countdown began to the cease-fire imposed on Netanyahu.

Even Hamas has chimed in, agreeing with the White House that Trump exerted “maximum pressure” on Netanyahu. Time reports:

“Without the personal interference of President Trump in this case, I don’t think that it would have happened, to have reached the end of the war,” Dr. Basem Naim, a physician and senior Hamas official, told Sky News.“Therefore, yes, we thank President Trump and his personal efforts to interfere and to pressure Netanyahu to bring an end to this massacre and slaughtering.”

Is the American deep state really yanking the choke chain of the Israeli one? September’s apparent Israeli terror plot against the United Nations, foiled by the Secret Service, seems to fit that script. The Secret Service revealed the plot deniably but pointedly, hinting none-too-subtly that it knew which “nation-state actor” had been conspiring to attack the UN. Like Israel’s apparent assassination of its renegade asset Charlie Kirk two weeks earlier, the anti-UN plot exemplified Israel’s mad-dog nature—and may have backfired by handing the US deep state leverage, in the form of a potentially multi-megaton public backlash should the truth be exposed.

And that, of course, is the Achilles heel of the “mad dog” strategy. Everyone agrees that mad dogs have to be put down. Base your nation’s behavior on that template, and you are signing its eventual, ineluctable death warrant. Each act of mad-dog mayhem offers your opponents the opportunity to gather evidence of your culpability and use it as leverage. For just as Netanyahu can threaten Trump with “Samson options” of nuclear havoc, assassinations, terror plots, Epstein revelations, and mad dog behavior in general, Trump (or the US deep state he fronts for) can threaten to expose Netanyahu’s Israel as the mad dog it well and truly is. At the end of the day, the US threat to annihilate Israel, whether through truth-exposure or international-consensus-joining or WMD, is—or at least ought to be—more credible than Israel’s “Samson” threats against the US and the world.

But the million-dollar question remains: Is there an American deep state willing and able to take on Israel? After 9/11, many US deep state insiders knew Israel did it, but felt powerless to respond effectively. Donn de Grand Pre recounted in Neoconned Again that he participated in meetings of senior US military officers who, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, were fully aware that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon amounted to a Zionist coup d’etat. Other three-letter-agency insiders have given similar accounts, including one who told me that an insiders’ conference in September, 2001 determined that a rapid, all-out attempt to undo the coup would have resulted in civil war.

The Israeli mad dog and its sayanim network of billionaires, terrorists, and mobsters (not mutually exclusive categories) may occasionally come in handy if they’re on your side. But thinking you’ve got your rabid pit bull on a leash, in hopes of using him to get what you want, may come back to bite you. Trump, for example, could fall in a false-flag assassination—a real one this time, not like the phony PR stunt in Butler, Pennsylvania. The Zionist-dominated media would likely obey orders to blame Iran. Then the US might find itself dragged into a terminally destructive war—all because it tolerated a mad dog’s decades of depredations.

A well-worn proverb says: Once bitten, twice shy. But the US keeps getting bitten over and over again, and keeps responding by extending its bare ankle in the direction of the mad dog’s slavering jaws.

Yanking Israel’s choke chain isn’t enough. Trump, and the deep state behind him, need to formulate a plan for a pre-emptive decapitation strike, whether through a multi-megaton exposure of Israel’s crimes starting with JFK and 9/11, a military option, or some combination thereof.

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