Truth Jihad Radio

Rumble link Bitchute link

US President Donald Duck, I mean Trump, fantasizes about flying over his enemies and defecating on them. What’s worse, he doesn’t know enough to keep that fantasy to himself. Instead, he posts it in graphic detail. Coprophiliacs everywhere lick their chops. Everyone else retches.

US President Lyndon Johnson, a high-IQ psychopath, used to make journalists and aides watch him defecate. This after he helped Israel blow Kennedy’s brains out—an even more obscene act.

Low-IQ psychopath Trump, whatever else you say about him, can be quite entertaining…even genuinely funny. He’s the classic example of “so dumb he thinks he’s a genius.” And let’s face it, the man does have a talent for clowning.

Trump has lately been entertaining us by posting videos about flocks of Canada Geese, modified by AI to look like Trump himself, invading Canada and renaming its waterways.

YouTube video

I am surprised that Trump hasn’t posted an AI video of a Trumped-up goose launching a “goose bomb” that lands smack dab atop the head of Mark Carney or Doug Ford.

Linh Dinh is thinking along similar lines:

With US missile and drone stocks depleted to alarming levels, Trump has decided to fly a specially designed F-35 to Iran, and just defecate on them. That AI video of him crapping on American protesters was just an appetizer. Wearing neither pants nor diaper, Trump will sit on a toilet seat above an open hatch and let fly. Asked if he had enough fecal matter to terrorize a vast nation of 93.2 million people, Trump responded with his typical swagger, “I have enough s**t to murder the entire world. My stench alone is more than enough.”

Trump has effectively lost his Israel-incited war on Iran. At this point, defecating on the Iranians is practically the only thing he hasn’t tried.

Unfortunately, many informed observers, including Tucker Carlson, Lawrence Wilkerson, Joe Kent, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Robert Barnes, and Larry Johnson, are claiming that Trump wants to take a nuclear dump on Iran. Insider sources told Johnson that Trump has already “tried to use the nuclear codes” but was prevented from doing so by General Dan Caine. For an in-depth discussion of this alarming situation, check out my podcast with Ron Unz discussing his recent article “The Collapse of American Hegemony and Global Nuclear Risks.”

Finally…no discussion of crazed leaders, scatology, evil conspiracies, and militarized incontinent geese would be complete without a plug for my latest book Bad Birder’s Birding Report: Nonsense Ornithology from Bad to Verse. It includes the poem “Canada Goose” (posted above) as well as a few other items with what we might call “conspiracy content,” alongside more than 100 innocuous, wryly humorous ditties that your non-red-pilled friends, relatives, and co-workers will enjoy. What’s more, the afterword offers a disarmingly subtle and friendly introduction to the “conspiracy realist” worldview. I beta-tested it on my own relatives, and they are raving about it and ordering copies for their friends as well as our more distant relations. So if you want to hoodwink people who aren’t into conspiracy theories into helping you spread conspiracy theories, this book is for you! And them! Contact me at truthjihad(at)gmail for bulk order discounts, or visit me at the book table at the Turning the Tide conference in New York next week.

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

Ron Unz joins the Truth Jihad Podcast to discuss his new article “The Collapse of American Hegemony and Global Nuclear Risks.”

The USA, ostensibly the world's leading military power, is not only proving it can’t win wars—Iraq and especially Afghanistan showed that—but that it is ideally situated to lose them…catastrophically. After getting pummeled and chased out of the Middle East by Iran, the American military has used up much of its weapons stock, and is no longer in a position to threaten China. The war on Russia through Ukraine may be shaping up as an almost equally disastrous failure.

So what do you do when your military has been exposed as a paper tiger? You reach for the nukes. That, at least, is what a number of alarming developments suggest Mad Uncle Sam may be contemplating. Credible leaks that Trump has tried to use nuclear weapons against Iran, alongside the recent revision of US nuclear doctrine to lower the nuclear threshold, have got sane observers scratching their heads and reaching for the panic button.

Is this all really as bad as it looks? And if so, what can be done about it? Ron Unz thinks that both the Russian and Chinese leadership have good options to remove the threat through bold pre-emptive action: A pre-announced Russian hypersonic missile strike on NATO HQ, and/or a blockade of Taiwan. You can vote for one, both, or neither, and explain why, in the comments.

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

As E. Michael Jones and I agreed on False Flag Weekly News (watch it above) it was a week of harrowing threats. First, Iran and Israel circulated a video offering ten million dollars to anyone who kills Trump’s college student son Barron, while detailing the target’s location, movements, and security. Then Linh Dinh came on my radio show to taunt white nationalists, whom he calls Angry White Pussies (AWPs), for being all talk and no action, adding that “A Meaningful Assassination Will Galvanize the American People.” Meanwhile, leftist firebrand Hasan Piker was raked over the coals for his prediction of violence against American Jews if they continue being rabidly loyal to Israel while destroying the USA. (Piker was responding to Michigan state Sen. Jeremy Moss saying, “The entire purpose of my career is to make sure America continues to support Israel.”)

Would things change for the better if Iran and/or Israel assassinated Barron Trump, or the white nationalists killed Barack Obama, or a patriotic anti-Zionist American killed Jeremy Moss? I doubt it. I really don’t see how such an event would “galvanize” anything but backlash.

If Iran and/or Israel killed Barron Trump, the Zionist media would make sure Iran got blamed even if it was Israel that did it. They would make Barron a martyr: A poor, sweet, innocent, semi-autistic kid whose only crime was having a scumbag for a father.

Any fair-minded observer would say: Wait a minute…on February 28, Trump slaughtered not just Iran’s revered Supreme Leader, but his 14-month-old grandaughter Zahra, as well as his daughter Boshra, son-in-law Mesbah, and daughter-in-law Zahra. Trump also murdered at least 156 people, the vast majority schoolgirls, with his demonic double-tap strike on the girls’ school in Minab. Since then, he has mass-murdered thousands of Iranian civilians and committed an endless list of war crimes by targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. It is entirely understandable why many tens of millions of Iranians want to kill Trump and/or his family. Who could possibly blame an Iranian for targeting Trump or his family members?

But that’s not how the Jew-owned-and-operated US media would report it. They would dehumanize the Iranians, ignore the righteousness of their defensive war, slander their religion, and paint the assassination of Barron Trump as the foulest crime ever committed on American soil. And they would provoke Trump to take maximum revenge on Iran (in order to benefit Israel) and try to rally the American people behind that revenge. The result would be accelerating carnage in West Asia, as well as further damage to America’s reputation, credibility, and economic and geopolitical interests.

And what if a white nationalist assassinated Obama? Like an “Iranian” assassination of Barron Trump, the main result would be blowback. The white nationalists, who are already demonized in mainstream media and culture, would suffer even more demonization and become even more marginalized. Obama, who is seeing his reputation and legacy soar by virtue of the pathetic performance of his immediate predecessors and successors—especially Trump’s cataclysmic Iran war—would go down in history alongside JFK and Lincoln as one of America’s big three presidential martyrs. He’d likely be added to Mt. Rushmore, much to Trump’s (and the white nationalists’) annoyance.

So rather than galvanizing America for white nationalism, an Obama assassination would likely de-galvanize it.

Aside: Remember when Andrew Adler, publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, editorialized that the Mossad should kill then-president Obama for not being loyal enough to Israel?

Finally, how about an anti-Zionist assassination of Jeremy Moss or another especially egregious Israel loyalist? Would not that send a message? The operation could be framed as “execution for treason, genocide, and war crimes.”

The [[[media]]] would of course frame it as antisemitism. They would use it to conflate opposition to Israel and its control of the US with “irrational Jew-hatred,” which is what antisemitism supposedly is. And they would demand stricter anti-antisemitism laws and policies, beginning with even more draconian censorship of the internet. They would say, “see, this proves the anti-Israel people are terrorists! This illustrates why we need to put our military under Israeli command!”

Would patriotic forces rise up and burn down the media? Would the president sign an executive order declaring a state of emergency, based on Israel’s having killed JFK and attacked the USS Liberty and perpetrated 9/11, enabling the round-up of pro-Israel traitors infesting American politics, finance, and media? I don’t think we’re quite there yet. Give it another couple of years. But as of today, a high-profile execution of a treasonous Israel loyalist and genocide perp, deserved or not, would probably postpone rather than hasten the day that the USSA solves its most pressing problem.

The above analysis is largely pragmatic and amoral. It attempts to evaluate the likely outcomes of three types of political assassinations. (That, of course, is how professional political assassins, most of whom work for Mossad, look at things.) If we want to abandon all traces of ends-justify-the-means logic, and just focus on the morality of killing this or that person, the obvious criterion is the target’s degree of innocence or guilt. While most people worldwide might agree that killing Netanyahu or Trump would be a morally virtuous act, since both men are guilty of a long list of heinous crimes including genocide, few would argue that Barron Trump deserves to die simply because his father is the world’s most notorious mass murderer. More complex arguments might arise concerning the likes of Jeremy Moss, focusing on whether his genocidal treason reaches the level of “the first degree.”

It can be argued that all forms of political assassination are morally problematic or worse. They stir up anger and hatred and invite revenge. In many cases they remove the people that the assassin’s party should be negotiating with, and impede negotiations with surviving leadership. That’s what Israel has achieved with its long history of assassinating resistance leaders, and it’s what Trump achieved by caving to Netanyahu and murdering Iranian leaders.

But what if your country has been taken over by a vicious, psychotic gang of mega-assassins? How can you remove them without resorting to their reprehensible tactics?

Lex talionis, known as qisas (proportionality) in its Islamic formulation, prescribes answering offenses with similar and proportional dissuasive punishment. If a nation, in this case Israel, commits more assassinations than the rest of the countries of the world put together—including hundreds of targeted assassinations of journalists during the past few years alone—lex talionis would seem to demand a policy of “assassinating the assassins.” But the goal would be to remove Zionists from power, and most assassinate-the-assassins scenarios would be counterproductive. So it isn’t obvious that straightforward applications of lex talionis would be defensible.

A “Galvanizing” Assassination?

Getting back to Linh Dinh’s claim…the only assassination I can imagine “galvanizing” the American people would be an assassination of Donald J. Trump. It might actually galvanize the Trump-haters, who represent at least one-third of the population (and a strong majority of educated people) to stand up and publicly cheer for whoever had assassinated the Narcissist-Moron-in-Chief. If the perp were thoughtful and sympathetic, and had written a good manifesto, like Luigi Mangione, half the women in America would be ripping off their panties and throwing them at the handsome young killer’s image on their big-screen. And it would certainly galvanize the pro-Trump die-hards, who probably represent less than one-third of the population (and are uniformly low-IQ now that the smart MAGA people have all deserted) to rise up and demand revenge.

In other words, a Trump assassination—a real one, not a fake spectacle like the Butler, PA charade or the lame PR stunt at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner—would galvanize the two sides of America against each other. It might even trigger civil war.

The [[[media]]] would insist that Iran did it, and try to rally the people behind a “let’s smash Israel’s enemies in revenge” policy. But unlike an assassination of Barron Trump, which very few people would openly welcome, the “neutralization” of Donald Trump—a dark triad psychopath who presents a bigger threat to the world than any other human being in history ever has and perhaps ever will—would be greeted by at least 100 million Americans, including the majority of the most educated and articulate people in America, with ecstatic celebrations and/or huge sighs of relief.

Please note that I am not, repeat NOT, calling for the assassination of the President of the United States. That would be extremely illegal.

The truth is, I actually think the US would probably be an even worse place after a Trump assassination. So I oppose the idea with complete sincerity. (There might be exceptional situations, such as James Comey and his friends “seashelling” Trump to prevent World War III, in which all good people would agree that the right thing had been done, but far be it from me, a mere amateur lacking the requisite security clearances, to speculate about such sensitive internal affairs of our beloved National Security State.)

So the bottom line is this: I disagree with Linh Dinh and oppose political assassination.

But what do you think? Sound off in the comments, and say anything you like…as long as it isn’t illegal!

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

Former BBC broadcaster Tony Gosling and I agreed on some points, and disagreed on others, last night on Press TV. Below is a partial transcript.

Press TV: Good evening. In tonight’s Spotlight, we examine a significant development in West Asia. The regional efforts for de-escalation between Iran and the U.S. and also resistance to U.S. secondary sanctions on Iran are increasingly beginning to overlap. Qatar’s Prime Minister is in Tehran discussing de-escalation, dialogue, and a phased maritime corridor through the Strait of Hormuz, while Russia says it will work with Iran and other countries to counter Washington’s secondary sanctions. So are regional countries beginning to take their security and economic interests into their own hands? Can Russia, China, and other powers prevent Washington from turning unilateral sanctions into a global policy? And are we witnessing the emergence of a regional and international order less impacted by the U.S. pressure? That’s what we’ll be discussing tonight with our guests: Kevin Barrett, editor of Al-Andalus Tribune of Saida, Morocco, and also joining us is Tony Gosling, historian and investigative journalist joining us from Bristol, the UK. I’m going to begin with Kevin Barrett, our guest from Morocco. Thank you so much for being with us. Let me begin by asking for your broad takeaway. Why do you think that the regional countries at this point are increasingly turning to Tehran directly to address de-escalation?

Kevin Barrett: Well, this is really the result of what’s been a clear Iranian victory in this war against Israel and the United States. The aggressors achieved nothing. They bragged that they were going to get a regime change and install puppet governments, and nothing like that happened. Quite the opposite. Iran has shown that it is the one that has the control over the Strait of Hormuz. It has shown that it is the one that has its weapons protected, buried deep underground, where they’re in many cases impregnable. It has more manufacturing capacity to renew its weapons than the Americans and Israelis have to renew theirs. And the American bases in the region have been decimated and the Americans have retreated. So the writing was on the wall already just 48 hours after the dastardly surprise attack on February 28th. But it’s slowly sinking in all over the world that this has been the most significant U.S. defeat perhaps in all of American history and the most important victory for a country that’s working for a multipolar world. And so now the world sees that we’re heading for that multipolar world. The U.S. is run by blatantly irresponsible criminal forces. Its figurehead president is a certified narcissistic lunatic who you never know what he’s going to say one minute after what he said the previous minute. And so every country has to try to figure out who’s reliable, who can it actually deal with, who’s going to keep its word. Well, the Americans won’t keep their word. They tore up and shredded every deal that they had, including the MOU. And so now we’re in a world where it’s every country for itself. And the countries that used to have to worry about American pressure are now seeing that the whole world will be better off if we get out from under this dollar hegemony where the Americans have the ability to choke off people’s money flows. And so that’s the new world and every country is having to adjust to it and go straight to Iran to make those kinds of deals to renew the relations in the region.

Press TV: That’s right. Now let me bring in Tony Gosling, our guest from Bristol. Thank you so much for being with me, Tony. I also wanted your thoughts on what it means that countries in the region that hosted and still host the U.S. bases are coming to Tehran directly, asking for de-escalation. And also what is important is to talk about what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran and Oman, which both of them are inching closer to a deal on how to manage the Strait of Hormuz, could that proposed maritime corridor through the Strait of Hormuz be a practical model for regional management, this time without Washington’s interference?

Tony Gosling: Well, yes, of course it could. But the trouble is, and I have to disagree with the other guest you have on there, I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet when it comes to this war. It’s certainly not a victory. This is tempting fate to say such things. It has been, so far, pretty much a defeat. But the thing is, you must never count your chickens before they’re hatched. This war could easily escalate. I think it could escalate in September after what we call here in the UK the silly season, where the politicians are schmoozed by the military-industrial complex, by the banksters, who are really driving much of the warfare that’s going on in the world today. Of course, these are not democracies. The people really aren’t getting a say whatsoever. And if you needed to be reminded of that, all you need to know is that Donald Trump campaigned on an anti-war platform and then he’s actually started one of the most horrific and horrendous wars of aggression, which is the greatest crime anybody in humanity can ever commit, with this illegal and unprovoked war against Iran. Okay, so the Americans at the moment are on the back foot, but that doesn’t mean to say that this is over by any means. Anyone that’s dropping their guard as a result should be extremely careful about counting their chickens. They’ll be dropping their guard. They think that somehow they’ve won, and I think it’s very dangerous. I think the war is still very much in progress. The Americans have got huge resources. They are in terminal decline, clearly. But a wounded tiger, as we know, can be extremely dangerous. They have nuclear weapons. They have got all sorts of weapons they haven’t used yet. And to think that this is all over and that they’ve won is a big mistake.

Press TV: All right, thank you so much, Tony. Now, let me go back to Kevin Barrett. Kevin, Tony makes a very good point. The Americans are on the back foot, but they still have a lot of resources. And also, we shouldn’t forget that they have a lot of allies in the region. So do you think that this is just a tactical retreat by the Americans, or is it a strategic one?

Kevin Barrett: Well, I think Tony made a great point that nobody should be letting down their guard. And it’s possible that there will be escalating military action. That’s true. But in terms of the relative balance of power, balance of forces, and the reactions of the various power centers around the world, it seems to me that any imaginable escalation of forces leaves the Americans even worse off. So in that sense, I think that barring extremely unforeseen circumstances, this can be marked as an Iranian victory, but one in which the Iranians obviously have to recognize that there may be more military attacks against them. That’s absolutely correct. And as far as Trump believing in Christian Zionism, yes, I agree that Christian Zionism and Zionism as a messianic millenarian ideology is the root of a lot of these problems. That’s what created the so-called state of Israel.

But I don’t think Trump himself is a true believer. I think Trump is a true believer in whatever is going to work for Trump. And I think Trump has been terrorized by his Israeli handlers into feeling like his life is on the line. And I think he’s suffering from a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, in which the captor manages to win the affection and loyalty of his abused captive. I think the Israelis have been essentially abusing their captive Trump. They have sexual blackmail on him. They have probably been the key players in the fake assassination attempts against Trump, the Butler Pennsylvania stunt where Trump did that ridiculous smeared fake blood on his face and jumped up and waved in front of the flag for the pre-placed photographers. The Secret Service never would have allowed a president to do that if he was really being shot at. And then we had the recent White House correspondent’s dinner shooting as well, which was also a hoax.

So I think that corrupt forces that are allied to Israel and its Kosher Nostra, the dominant crime syndicate in the United States, have totally surrounded Trump. They’ve threatened him. And they’ve terrorized him. Trump is constantly whining “the Iranians are going to kill me, the Iranians are coming after me.” I think that’s Stockholm Syndrome. That’s because he knows that the Zionists have a gun to his head and never stop reminding him of that…

For the full conversation, watch the video above. You can read the full transcript at my Substack using the transcript feature..

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

Legendary conspiracy filmmaker John Hankey, the Los Angeles based former high school history teacher, returns with another great documentary: Hoax: The White House Correspondent’s Dinner. It uses the leaked hi-res security video to prove that the patsy, Cole Allen, was escorted to the attack site by security—and never fired any bullets. That means the alleged shotgun pellet supposedly found in a Secret Service agent’s vest was planted there. No actual shots, as opposed to blanks, were fired by anyone. No White House correspondents, presidents, presidents’ family members, security team members, or any one else except the mind-controlled patsy, Cole Allen, was endangered in this lame Hollywood-style stunt.

In the interview we go off on a long tangent about the Rothschilds, rather in the same way Linh Dinh and I went off on a long tangent about what he calls “the Jew-Jabs.” If you find such arguments tedious, feel free to cut straight to the documentary film itself:

Rumble link to Hoax Bitchute link to Hoax

John Hankey’s films include:

* JFK II: The Bush Connection (2003): The original film exploring alleged ties between the Bush family and the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

* Dark Legacy (2009): A repackaged and more polished rendition of JFK II, focusing heavily on allegations linking George H.W. Bush to the JFK assassination.

* Dark Legacy II (2014): A follow-up documentary that attempts to connect the deaths of other members of the Kennedy family, specifically focusing on John F. Kennedy Jr..

* October 7 Was an Inside Job (2024): Explores evidence that elements of the Israeli government stood down to allow the October 7 concentration camp break-out, then deliberately massacred their own civilians, invoking the Hannibal Doctrine, in order to blame those deaths on Hamas.

* Trump in the Crosshairs: Murder in Butler, PA (2024): Shows that Trump and elements of his security team hoaxed the “ear nick heard round the world”—while murdering an innocent and wounding two others.

* Uvalde: Monsters & Heroes (2023): A documentary focusing on the events and response surrounding the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

* Justice for Charlie Kirk (2026): Explores evidence that Candace Owens is right: Israel killed Charlie.

* Hoax (2026): His most recent production, which questions the official narratives surrounding the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting on April 25, 2026.

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

Linh Dinh, the notable American poet-photographer-essayist, has never shied away from controversy. That’s why he was hounded out of the American literary world and now works from Vietnam (and wherever his peregrinations take him).

Is Linh really goading the “angry white pussies" he used to feud with at The Unz Review to consider high-profile political assassinations? Does he yearn to see a white nationalist Luigi Mangione grab the national spotlight? Or is he trolling the AWPs, and us? Watch the interview, make up your own mind, and feel free to drop a comment!

Linh Dinh: Look at Israel, man. You know, I mean, how much more arguing do we need? We need to fight. We need missiles. We don’t need protests, man. Protests are useless. And that’s what they want us to think. You know, hold up a sign and something will change. Nothing will change from holding a sign for half an hour on a street corner. That’s what Americans do all the time. You know, they hold a little protest and they go home and they think they did something. They’ve done nothing. You know, you need to fight back. And, you know, in the United States, you can’t vote, you can’t protest, you can’t... You can’t control the media even. You need to do something by force. If it takes an assassination, so be it. A meaningful assassination will galvanize the American people and will wake up these angry white pussies to become real men for once. Maybe one out of ten will act instead of just go online.

Kevin Barrett: What kind of scenario could there be where angry white pussies commit an assassination that does something productive for the world?

Linh Dinh: Well, okay. I mean, if a meaningful figure is killed overnight, it will wake people up and say, wait a second, you know, these guys are not untouchable because they are untouchable. You can’t reach them, you know?

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I could see the argument maybe for going after certain kinds of very high-level guilty people, right? Like the war criminals, the people who are trying to create a total digital dystopia panopticon, people that Helen of Destroy was talking about on the last False Flag Weekly News, putting flock cameras everywhere, building the data centers. And so, yeah, she was speaking kind of sympathetically, to say the least, of the people who were smashing the flock cameras. And she was hoping that similar means might be used against the data centers. And yeah, I can relate to that.

One issue, though, is that a lot of times, once you start admitting that using violence is justified because that’s ultimately what rules the world, so you admit that openly, right? And then the people on your side, you convince them that that’s the case. Well, sometimes what happens is that the stupid people on your side end up committing acts of violence that do not help your cause. They backfire and hurt your cause, and justify the retaliation. The first people who are going to listen to you and commit the violence are the emotional people, the ones who don’t think things through. They are just controlled by emotion. And those people might get all excited…

Linh Dinh: And then you have the false flags.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, exactly. You have the false flags, too. And sometimes a combination of the two.

Linh Dinh: Fake assassinations, such as what happened with Trump.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, Trump had two blatantly fake assassination attempts, and I don’t trust the third one either.

Linh Dinh: Right, exactly. So yeah, I understand all that, but we can’t reach them. It would take a driver, a bodyguard, or somebody with access.

Kevin Barrett: You wonder about Trump’s Praetorian Guard. At what point is Trump’s Praetorian Guard going to poison his toothpaste like Nixon did to J. Edgar Hoover? That was in the Anthony Summers’ biography of J. Edgar Hoover that said Nixon had his toothpaste poisoned. So yeah, you’d think that these people are at some point would realize that Trump’s usefulness would be over. Trump is the tool of the extreme Zionist faction, the crazies, you know, the total ultra lunatic Zionist faction. They think they can get their way, using him. Whereas the more strategic faction of the American deep state are probably not that thrilled with an awful lot of what Trump does, to say the least. I mean, they probably see that he’s hastening the demise of their empire, and it’s just distasteful. I mean, looking at this blatant, narcissistic orangutan and his antics, just defecating all over the world stage.

Linh Dinh: I disagree, Kevin. I think they love his crassness.

Kevin Barrett: Really?

Linh Dinh: Kevin, I disagree. I think they love his... Yes, because there’s never been a worse white man so visible, okay? So I think they love to rub it into the angry white pussy’s face. This is your leader, okay? No man can make whites in general look so vulgar and disgusting and just stupid. So I think they’re enjoying the show, the spectacle. That’s why they installed him. I mean, they knew he was like this. Everyone should have known he was like this.

Kevin Barrett: Jeffrey Epstein is on record talking about what a scumbag Trump is. And if Epstein thinks you’re a scumbag, that takes some doing.

Linh Dinh: Right. So I think they enjoy the show. And as far as destroying their empire, I think they want many of these people killed. They want many Americans dead. They want many Europeans dead. So they don’t mind it. They see too many of us. That’s what the Jew Jabs were for. They want to get rid of us. So this is one way to get rid of us, to starve us (by using the Iran and Ukraine wars to collapse global food and energy supplies).

Kevin Barrett: I’m not going to argue with you about the “Jew Jabs” again, though, because we already had that argument. But yeah, I’m not so sure.

Linh Dinh: That’s important, man. I mean, yeah, okay. The Jew Jabs killed millions…

(Watch us argue about the “Jew Jabs” again in the video, posted above. The transcript is also available via the Substack transcription tool at KevinBarrett.Substack.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

Watch this week’s False Flag Weekly News above. At the 48’46” mark Helen Buyniski begins discussing her new article “Invasion of the Country-Snatchers: The AI-powered surveillance state is un-American. Literally.”

You can tell an empire is collapsing when it starts cannibalizing its vassals. And you can tell it’s losing control of its vassals when it has to threaten to “bomb the s**t out of them.”

Both conditions pertain to the Zio-American empire circa 2026. Last week, Trump, our American Caligula, exploded in obscene threats against US vassal Oman, and a hysterical diatribe against another vassal, South Korea. Neither vassal wants to mindlessly obey Trump’s most insane orders. Neither wants to be frog-marched into the front lines of Trump’s long-lost war on Iran. But both are working overtime to try to cooperate with the US, but get rewarded by vicious tirades from American’s rabid-baboon-in-chief. Oliver Boyd-Barrett summed it up in a headline: “US Gangland Chief Threatens to Blow Up Ally Oman, Befriend North Against South Korea, Sends Realtor Flunkey to Greenlight Genocide.” My only beef with that headline is that “realtor” is a euphemism for “Jewish gangster.”

CNN and other liberal media present these antics as if they were just symptoms of Trump’s madness. But the US began attacking and devouring its vassals under Biden, who ordered the destruction of Germany’s industrial lifeline, the Nordstream pipeline. Indeed, the whole US-orchestrated war on Russia through Ukraine is actually a disguised war on Germany and the EU, which, like China, would be a dangerous competitor to the Zio-Americans if it were thriving and independent.

For decades, the US dominated the world by presiding over an empire of contented vassals. The most important bloc of vassals was the EU. It could be reliably counted on to back Washington, embraced US occupation by hosting military bases, and in return was granted modest prosperity. When Biden blew up Nordstream, strangling German industry by doubling the price it paid for energy—US-produced LPG, not cheap Russian piped gas—the gargantuan involuntary wealth transfer from the EU to the US announced a new era, AIBO: the American Imperial Bust-Out.

What is a bust-out? There is no better introduction than this article by Indi.ca, which I quote:

The Mafianomics business model is simple, and what is happening is called a bust-out. You take over a business—when the owner gets into your debt or comes to you for protection against someone else—and then start running up bills on the joint’s credit. When the debts overwhelm the actual business you burn it and move onto the next one. You light a match. This is the colonial business model writ small.

In the exact same way, the White mafia has ‘busted-out’ entire continents. They corrupt local compradors, debt trap entire nations, strip the resources, and then ‘light a match.’ They have done this to every country on Earth and now there’s nothing left to bust-out, so they’re cannibalizing the imperial periphery (Europe, the UAE) before descending on their own corpse.

Will the US invade Canada to grab Alberta’s oil and gas? Or sponsor a secessionist movement there? Will it steal Greenland from Denmark and the EU? Will it demand exorbitant protection money from South Korea and Japan? Will it continue raping not just Venezuela, but the rest of Latin America?

Such treatment of “allies” (in reality, vassals) gives them a strong incentive to leave the empire, make alliances with the empire’s enemies, and band together for protection. America’s Persian Gulf vassals are on the brink of doing that—the topic of my interview yesterday on Press TV.

The empire’s frenzy approaches critical mass. It lashes out wildly and chaotically, with ever-more-obscene abandon.

The writing is on the wall. It’s almost over.

But will the Epstein class go down without taking the world with it?

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

Press TV

Iran says it has received numerous messages from neighboring countries regarding new security arrangements for the region. Tehran argues that the United States, through its bullying and disregard for the interests of its allies, has put their security at risk. According to Iran’s Parliament Speaker, Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, lasting peace and security can only emerge from a homegrown, independent regional order. This edition of Spotlight examines what these proposed security arrangements might entail and how they could reshape the region’s security landscape.

Transcript

Press TV: Good evening. In tonight’s Spotlight, we examined the emerging security arrangements in West Asia and whether the region is witnessing the beginning of a fundamentally new security order. Iran says it has received messages from neighboring countries seeking to shape new regional security arrangements as questions grow over the future of an American security architecture that has dominated the Persian Gulf for decades now. The 40-day war and Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz have demonstrated the vulnerabilities of that system, while even the disruption of the Bab al-Mandab Strait has shown how quickly regional conflicts can reverberate across the global economy.

So what would a genuinely independent regional security architecture look like? What happens to the American military bases if regional states no longer see Washington as the guarantor of their security? And are Hormuz and Bab Al-Mandab Straits becoming the foundations of a new balance of power in West Asia? That’s what we’ll be discussing tonight with our guests. Reza Vedadi, academic researcher and author, join us from Muscat, Oman. And Kevin Barrett, editor of Veterans Today, join us from Saida, Morocco. Gentlemen, both of you, thank you so much for being with me. I’m going to begin with Mr. Vedadi, our guest in Muscat. Reza, what is exactly changing at this moment? Qalibov says Iran’s neighboring countries are now sending messages about new security arrangements. What has changed since the 40-day war such that right now regional states are pushing and reconsidering the old security framework?

Reza Vedadi: We’ve witnessed since the Ramadan attack in the end of February, beginning of March on Iran, that Iran has put a lot of military pressure on the U.S. basis. And it’s demonstrated the U.S. capability, as it was promised for 20, 30 years to the purchasing people, the Arabs, the Persian Gulf countries, that it’s not capable or it will not be used to defend them. It was mainly used to try and defend Israel. And so I think these Arab leaders have come to a conclusion that they can’t rely on the United States’ promise of defending them, no matter how many billions they have spent on establishing the bases, buying the military equipment, and maintaining these bases. So I think they’ve come to a realization that they need to work with either regional powers, such as Turkey and Pakistan, with the Mecca agreement, or actually working with Iran in a capacity that will demonstrate that they will not want to be party to a country that attacks it.

So I think we have to see how things unfold. The fact that the United States isn’t capable militarily to try and defeat Iran and has resorted to the sanctions which it has been committing for many, many years, maybe many decades, and hasn’t worked, in the sense that it hasn’t collapsed the Iranian government and system.

I think the leaders realize that they need to have a new approach to the issue of Iran and relations with Iran.

Press TV: Thank you, Mr. Vedadi. I’m going to come back to that. Mr. Barrett, thank you so much for your time as well. When we are talking about a new regional security arrangement, in your mind, what would that actually look like in practice? Is it joint maritime security? Is it mutual defense commitments? Is it intelligence cooperations or something beyond?

Kevin Barrett: Well, one would hope that it would involve all of that. And it could involve a major upgrading of relations between Iran and its neighbors. Those relations have remained very stressful, mainly not so much because of any real clash of interests between Iran and its neighbors, but rather because the United States Empire is dominated by Jewish Zionist billionaires who have hijacked the United States and made the expansion of this settler colony squatting in occupied Palestine their number one priority. And since Iran, since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, has been led by people of principle who refuse to abandon the Palestinians to the genocide that the Zionists are trying to force on them, that has led to this conflict. And because the other nations have essentially been willing to remain U.S. vassals, they’ve been dragged into the conflict with Iran. And all of these other issues that come up, whether it’s the Islamic Republican governance versus hereditary monarchies, or whether it’s sectarianism, these are actually secondary. The prime issue has been the fact that Iran has been made the enemy of the Zionist-occupied American empire which has forced that enmity on the regional countries. And that hasn’t worked out for the regional countries. As the other guest accurately said, putting American bases in that region whose real purpose is to try to defend endless Zionist expansionism in the Greater Israel Project from Iran has not been advantageous to those countries. On the contrary, it’s put targets on their backs. And when the United States and Israel launched this dastardly attack in the Ramadan War, the latest episode of an escalating U.S.-Zionist war on Iran, this has totally changed the situation—because Iran finally was forced to break out of its conservative, defensive posture. And so it’s going to be up to the region to pick up the pieces. And we’re seeing movement in that direction with the Mecca Accords and with these new communications between Iran and regional countries aimed at creating a win-win security arrangement in the region that doesn’t have to be directed from Washington or Tel Aviv.

Press TV: Mr. Vedadi, there are two questions that I wanted to put to you. Number one is, has the war demonstrated to the Persian Gulf Arab countries that Washington is ultimately prioritizing Israeli security rather than their own security? And if there are bases in their countries, it’s because of Israeli security, not because of their countries. And how seriously, because this was a part of your previous response, how seriously do you take, for example, what happened in Mecca? Because some analysts have been saying that there was a security agreement between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan before the 40-day war, but it didn’t help the Saudis. What’s your response to that?

Reza Vedadi: I think if we zoom out, we notice that the Arabs in the Persian Gulf, and I would say as far as even South Korea, have noticed that the Americans will take resources from these regions to provide support for the Israelis and protect the Israelis. So it’s not just the Arabs that have noticed this, but I think many in the world who are either allies with the United States or work closely with the United States have realized that the United States is in the country that it’s promising to be in its defense of these regions that it’s integrated in (for nefarious purposes). And with regards to the pact, yes, you’re correct. The Saudis had an agreement with the Pakistanis. And even further, some have stated that the Saudis have funded the Pakistani nuclear weapon program. And one of its promises to the Pakistanis was that if Saudi Arabia ever needed a nuclear weapon, Pakistan would provide that to them. But going further, seeing that Turkey has come to some kind of agreement—we don’t know the exact details of the agreement—but an agreement with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is interesting, because right now we’ve seen that the Israelis have attacked bases that belong to Turkey or are managed by the Turkish forces in Syria. So is this a prelude to a possible confrontation between Turkey and Israel?

And we also know that Israel has discussed on many occasions that once they dismantle and destroy Iran, the next country that they wish to go to is either Pakistan, they’ve mentioned in previous discussions, or Turkey. So maybe these countries have realized that the United States is engaged in protecting its colonial outpost, Israel, in the region, and that if they want to be secure, maybe they need to work together. And they’ve stated also that this pact is not against Iran. So if it’s not against Iran, who else would it be but possibly Israel?

Press TV: That’s right. Mr. Barrett, do you also see that the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf have finally change course and realize that the United States is pursuing Israeli security with the bases in their countries?

Kevin Barrett: Yes, I think they’re recognizing that the threat posed to them by Israel is much greater than their problems with Iran, and that indeed their problems with Iran, as I mentioned earlier, grow out of the U.S. relationship with Israel. And I think they also noticed that as much as they like to be afraid of Iran as an example that could lead their people to rise up against the current rulers and install governments that would be more representative and Islamic, the Americans have managed to leverage that and use that to sort of shepherd these countries into their way of seeing things, which ultimately mainly benefits the Israelis. The Americans have said, “we have this plan to contain Iran, contain the Islamic Revolution,” and the local despots and monarchies have been willing to buy into that. But actually, there hasn’t really been an overriding threat to anybody’s stability from Iranian operations, etc. This has been overblown. And I think these local countries, now that they’re being damaged so heavily by a war that is the product of Israeli expansionism—the Israelis force their American golem to attack Iran—this is creating all kinds of havoc and a very serious catastrophic threat. That is, if the Israelis get their way and manage to talk the Americans into, or even do it themselves, do some kind of horrific really massive attack on Iran, then whatever level of damage that Iran suffers, it will be able to retaliate both against the Zionist entity and then against the regional countries that are complicit in the war. And that actually threatens these countries almost existentially. And so they need to remove that threat. And then they also need to remove the threat, the long-term or even medium-term threat, of the Greater Israel Project, which covets the land of Saudi Arabia and perhaps even Turkey as well as many other countries in the region.

And as the other guest pointed out, the Israelis just attacked Turkey. They attacked a Turkish base in Syria, and they’ve made no bones about the fact that they’re planning a war with Turkey. I think that in the short term, these countries have sold the Mecca arrangement to the Americans as if it sort of looks like it’s against Iran and the Axis of Resistance. And so the Americans will accept it.

But it’s really part of a growing recognition that the real security threat to the region comes from the messianic-millenarian genocide perpetrators in Occupied Palestine.

Press TV: The first question that comes to mind when we are talking about regional countries and states beginning developing their own security arrangements in this region is: What happens to the U.S. bases that already exist?

Reza Vedadi: Well, the question is, how much of these U.S. bases still exist? The majority have been destroyed. And the question then is: Do these Arab countries want to rebuild these bases? And why would they want to rebuild them, if they know they’re magnets for missiles and drones? And if they don’t do the stated job of defending the country, why would they rebuild them? And the question is, would even the United States be capable of rebuilding as the Strait of Homuz is closed, the military ships from the United States are not capable of entering and trying to bring equipment and supplies. So the question then arises that if the Arab leaders have realized that there’s no point in rebuilding them. If they were not there, they would most probably not be attacked, because there would be no reason for Iran to attack them. So it’s best for them not to be rebuilt. And so that’s a problem for the United States.

And regarding the kind of security architecture for the region, they will then work with regional powers, and Iran is one of them, along with Pakistan, Turkey, possibly Egypt, to try and come up with a plan to provide security for themselves. And if you really look at the history of the region, Iraq attacked Iran and Kuwait because it was encouraged by the U.S. to attack these countries. And all the other major wars are instigated by Israel against its neighbors. And the other conflicts are usually civil wars that were arranged and organized covertly by Israel—its agencies, CIA, Mossad and other agencies in the West. Syria, for example, and Libya. So if these kind of influences are removed from the region, the question arises, would the region automatically have more stability and the neighbors would not necessarily have reasons to go at war? They may have disagreements, they may have certain conflicts, but it would not lead to military conflict like we have seen in the last 40, 50 years.

Press TV: Mr. Barrett, could we eventually see a reduction of the U.S. military footprint in the West Asia region? Or would you say that Israel will not let that happen?

Kevin Barrett: Well, I think we’ve already seen it. The American bases have been decimated. And they can’t rebuild, as the other guest said. The ships that would bring in rebuilding equipment have to go through the Strait of Hormuz, which is now under de facto Iranian control. So it’s a new world now.

There’s a wonderful novel by Abdul Rahman Munif, the great Saudi novelist, about the Americans coming to that region and establishing themselves. And they come in ships, and they bring all of this material out of those ships, and they build their bases, and they take over, and they basically destroy everybody’s lives.

Now, if they want to come back and rebuild and keep destroying people’s lives in the region, they have to come through the Strait of Hormuz. And it’s closed to them. I think it’s inevitable that the American footprint in the region will be downgraded, both because of that simple logistical military factor and also because, as mentioned, the other countries in the region are now waking up to the fact that the U.S. is not protecting them and keeping the peace. The U.S. has been harassing them, degrading them, and imposing wars on them in order to keep them divided and conquered, to prevent them from ever becoming strong enough to challenge the Israeli genocide perpetrators.

That’s what this has really been all about. The other guest is right. The Americans were responsible for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Ambassador April Glaspie sent a message to Saddam Hussein saying, “we have no objection to any inter-Arab dispute. Go ahead and invade Kuwait.” That was a setup.

And that was just one example of how so many of these conflicts, including the decimation of Libya and the rest of these seven countries in five years—though it’s taken more than five years—that were targeted by the 9/11 Israeli false flag attack on Washington and New York back in 2001.

All of this destabilization has been designed to keep the region weak and divided. And the region is waking up now, and it has a chance to get past that, to create new institutions that will prevent that region from being victimized the way it’s been victimized by the Zionist-controlled U.S. empire, which wants the region weak, divided, which wants to keep mowing the lawn. Not just in Gaza, but all these other wars in the region, are a form of Zionists mowing the lawn to keep the region weak and destroyed so that the Zionists can be the strongest party in the region and they can dream of establishing their Greater Israel Project. Well, the region is on to them now, and I don’t think it’s going to let them do it.

Press TV: So Reza Vedadi, let’s talk about the Strait of Hormuz. How has Iran’s ability to control the strategic waterway of the Strait of Hormuz changed the strategic calculations of every country in the Persian Gulf region?

Reza Vedadi: Well, it’s surprising. The United States thought they could come in and attack Iran and there’ll be no consequences. And then Iran has learned a new strategy where if Iran is going to suffer under economic, military, political pressure, then the rest of the world, which has stayed silent for 47 years when all of the sanctions from the West were levied on Iran, and countries like Korea and Qatar and Japan would withhold Iranian funds that belong to the Iran, have realized, well, then the rest of the world will have to go along and suffer with Iran as well. And so this closing the Strait of Hormuz is a mechanism which is not a nuclear weapon, but it’s more devastating than a nuclear weapon because it puts pressure on the regional countries to think more carefully about who they work with against Iran, who they allow to come and use their territory to attack Iran.

But it also is a method of leverage against countries That have followed the U.S. sanctions on Iran, when they didn’t have to, but they did it out of pressure because they are close to the United States. And so now you see these countries coming and trying to build a relationship so that their ships can come through, that the supply of oil can come to their countries and they don’t suffer from the lack of petroleum products. And you have to understand that it’s not just petrol. It’s all the other products that come through the Persian Gulf, such as fertilizers, gases and so forth needed for microchip building.

So I think Iran is utilizing its military capability, its doctrine that has worked on for 20, 30 years to utilize the Strait of Hormuz in a way where it’s not killing individuals, but it’s using it to pressure governments to act more justly.

Press TV: Mr. Barrett, are we seeing a West Asian regional expression of a much larger transition to a multipolar world order?

Kevin Barrett: Yes, I think that is what’s happening. And in the long term, the United States and the West have lost their overwhelming preponderance of global GDP, their lead in production and technology. And the U.S. in particular has divested of its production by sending its manufacturing abroad to places with cheaper labor. And so for that reason today, the productive capacity of China vastly outstrips that of the United States. And the rest of the global south has also greatly narrowed the gap. The U.S. had about half of global GDP, and most of global gold supplies, immediately after World War II. And today it’s down pushing 15 percent of global GDP and heading downward. And that’s probably exaggerated because it measures all of these metrics that are really not productive metrics. If you do real GDP based on actual production, then the U.S. looks even worse. And so you can’t continue to rule the world with maybe 10 percent of real global GDP the way you could when you had 50 percent of global GDP. You just can’t. And it’s no longer a unipolar world in that sense. And so we are seeing a transition in the empire, this American empire, which is dominated by wealthy Jewish Zionists. And the Zionist oligarchs, the Epstein class, is flailing around trying to find a solution to this. And they’re hoping that artificial intelligence will allow them to brainwash the entire global population into accepting their misrule. But I don’t think they’re going to have too much luck with that. China’s AI program is much more sensible and focused.

And so I think that we are seeing the American empire stepping back. They’re almost admitting it now. They’re threatening their own allies. Threatening South Korea, attacking Canada, slapping tariffs on Canada, threatening Oman, using profane language to threaten Oman, profanity coming out of the White House. It’s a sorry spectacle. As an American, I’m embarrassed by how my country is handling the end of its empire. But that’s the way history is playing out.

Press TV: Gentlemen, thank you both. Those were Reza Vedadi, the academic researcher and author, joining us from the city of Muscat. And Kevin Barrett, editors of Veterans Today, joining us from Saida in Morocco. Thank you both. And that brings us to the end of this 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

Rumble link Bitchute link

The University of Wisconsin-Madison poses as a tenacious defender of academic freedom. Its motto, enshrined on a plaque in the heart of campus, boasts of “fearless sifting and winnowing” in search of dangerous truths.

Twenty years ago, during the run-up to the fifth anniversary of 9/11, I was hounded out of UW-Madison by big media (and the oligarchs who own it) for questioning that event. Today, the witch-hunts at the University of Wisconsin continue, as wealthy Jewish-Zionist donors—the same people who wanted to silence me about 9/11—have forced American universities to mount an unprecedented assault on academic freedom.

Pro-Palestine activist Kareem Mayouf joins the Truth Jihad podcast from Beirut, Lebanon to discuss the student movement that arose in 2023 to oppose Israel’s unspeakable daily atrocities. All relevant human rights authorities agree that the deliberate massacres of tens if not hundreds of thousands of women and children in Gaza, and the reduction of that urban enclave to rubble, constitutes clear and undeniable genocide. Yet opposing that genocide makes wealthy Jews uncomfortable, so they threaten to cancel donations to universities—and leverage their power over an Epstein-blackmailed Israeli-controlled pedophile president—to force administrations to all but ban pro-Palestine activism from American campuses.

Kareem Mayouf explains how, after two years of activism that included bringing Jewish anti-genocide scholar and author Norman Finkelstein to speak on campus, he was arrested and jailed because his opinions seemed similar to those expressed in spray-painted anti-genocide slogans. Banned from campus with no due process, no trial, no proof he had done anything illegal—but witch-hunted in the Zionist-dominated media—he moved to Beirut to do graduate work in history.

The good news is that Americans can still have an honest conversation about their Zionist-occupied country. The bad news is that it has to be from Morocco and Lebanon via Zoom!

Kareem Mayouf: When the genocide started, I was an undergraduate student at UW Madison. I was studying history. And so after October 7th happened, I was following a mixture of Western outlets, but also Al Jazeera and some alternative media outlets, and my immediate interpretation was this is an obvious concentration camp uprising. I mean, if you just look at a map of Gaza, it was clearly a concentration camp. And I thought, okay, well, this was long overdue. Israel, the Zionist entity, quote unquote Israel, was smacked very openly and heroically in the raid that Hamas conducted. And so I thought, okay, this is an interesting development.

Members of my family and some friends began sending me articles basically describing how, based on the statements of Israeli leaders—I think one of my aunts basically told me that this is it for the Palestinians. They’re going to use this like a sledgehammer to kill as many people as possible. And they’re going to do whatever they can to buy acquiescence from the West. So immediately after October 7th, we started hearing all these racist lynch mob lies. I noticed that certain sectors the population were really drinking the Kool-Aid, and they were just completely intoxicated on this racist lynch-mob lies about these fake baby beheadings and mass rapes…

Kevin Barrett: Babies in ovens. Don’t forget the babies in the ovens.

Kareem Mayouf: Yeah, babies in ovens. Yeah, exactly. And then, of course, the daily massacres began. I heard the genocide statements. Yoav Galant, Itamar Ben-Gavir, Isaac Herzog, the president, said that “it’s a whole nation that’s responsible. There are no innocents, no food, no water, no electricity. We’re fighting against human animals.” And then the daily massacres…I think first they started leveling entire blocks, apartment buildings coming down, and it was appalling. So I thought, okay, I can’t really shy away from this. I can’t sit this out. This demands full commitment of my time. I had some involvement in Students for Justice in Palestine, but it wasn’t very extensive.

But after October 7th, I really started getting more involved, organizing weekly demonstrations, pamphleting, handing out zines on campus, just walking around with a Palestinian flag on campus, because that was one of the big issues, getting people to understand, break the spell of this lie that completely possessed people for awhile.

Because the Palestinian perspective was completely banned from mainstream media. It was just Hamas war versus Israel, and that’s how this was portrayed. So we protested weekly, and we made ourselves very visible. We weren’t afraid of protesting without masks. We thought, okay, these are peaceful demonstrations, peaceful assemblies. And so for the first year, fall 2023 and then spring 2024, we basically protested nonstop…

(For the full conversation, watch the video, or use the transcript feature, 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

Heads up! This week’s False Flag Weekly News guest commentator, Wyatt Peterson, just published “Is Israel Planning to Assassinate President Trump?” -KB

Trump wants to make a deal with Iran. That’s why he murdered the current Supreme Leader’s father, along with 168 schoolgirls at Minab and hundreds of other civilians.

Trump’s attempts to make a deal with Iran include: threats of total annihilation, claims that he has already won, obscene Easter outbursts ("Open the F****n' Strait, you crazy b******s, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah!"), unilaterally declaring possession of the “Strait of Trump,” and vacillating between outraged tirades about how Iran will never have a nuclear weapon and deprecations of the “nuclear dust” that is so far underground it isn’t very important, anyway.

Does Trump think his arrogant scorn for the men and women he’s sent off on a deadly fool’s errand will somehow enhance his negotiating position? Does he imagine that telling the crew members of the USS Abraham Lincoln that after eight months at sea with extremely poor logistical support, “they haven’t been out there nearly long enough” will somehow win concessions from Iran’s Supreme Leader?

Is there some method to Trump’s apparent madness—some multidimensional-chess-style negotiating strategy? To find out, we turn to Trump’s magnum opus, The Art of the Deal. According the real author, Tony Schwartz, Trump didn’t write a single word of that book, and probably didn’t even read much of it. Schwartz says Trump spent a couple of hours with his (Schwartz’s) book, made a few minor marks, and falsely claimed authorship.

Schwartz says Trump’s attention span is so microscopic that it was impossible to do meaningful interviews. So he shadowed Trump for 18 months, embellished and mythologized Trump’s activities and purported methods, and wound up “putting lipstick on a pig.”

AI is mostly a curse, but it’s useful for pulling up the main points of a book one would never dream of buying or reading. According to AI summaries The Art of the Deal advocates various dealmaking strategies that may or may not relate to Trump’s attempts to come to terms with Iran, including:

*“Think big.” Trump says he plans to steal all of Iran’s oil and unilaterally incorporate the Strait of Hormuz into the United States, renaming it “The Strait of Trump.” I guess that counts as thinking big—in the same way the asylum inmate who insists he’s Napoleon is thinking big.

*“Go with your gut feeling, don’t listen to the experts.” When Netanyahu and his Mossad chief visited Trump and advocated attacking Iran, and all of Trump’s advisors except Hegseth were against it, Trump went with his gut feeling…which was, we surmise, that if he didn’t do what Netanyahu ordered, video evidence of Trump raping underage girls might be made public.

*“Always deal from a position of strength.” Trump has been so hilariously unconvincing in his pretensions to be dealing from a position of strength— “we’ve wiped out their entire military,” “we have total control over the Strait,” “our regime change succeeded,” “we’ve completely obliterated their nuclear sites,” “their economy has completely collapsed”—that he has indeed developed a very strong position…as a comedian specializing in self-parody.

*“Maximize your options.” Trump’s supposed strategy of never getting locked into a single deal or path, but instead developing all sorts of fallback options, obviously isn’t working as intended: Trump has exactly ZERO options except surrender. So he parodies the “maximize your options” strategy by being wildly inconsistent and incoherent, saying one thing one minute and its opposite five minutes later. Today, we’re going to invade and occupy them and steal their oil; tomorrow, we’re going to nuke them back to the Stone Age; and the day after tomorrow, we’ll just walk away because, contrary to appearances, we’ve already won. In other words, “maximize your options” has become “maximize your b******t.”

*“Get the word out.” AI summaries say The Art of the Deal advocates “using publicity and sensational storytelling strategically to capture attention and influence public perception.” Trump is certainly succeeding at grabbing public attention through publicity and sensational storytelling about his misbegotten war on Iran. Unfortunately for him, he is grabbing negative public attention by making a complete ass of himself. “Strategic” doesn’t describe his attention-grabbing incoherence, rage, and obscenity—nor his capturing the world’s imagination, and making it collapse in unbelieving laughter, by sneaking out of Air Force One in a food cart while sending staff and journalists into the sky as bait for purported Iranian missiles. A stunningly brilliant publicity stunt, that…for Iran.

*“Deliver the goods: Back up bold claims with real results.” This, of course, is where Trump most obviously falls flat. The gaping abyss between what comes out of Trump’s unhinged mouth and discernible reality is so vast that one can only marvel at the sheer chutzpah that enables him to emit such preposterously vacuous noises.

In reality, it is Iran’s leadership that is giving a master class in the art of the deal.

*Iran is thinking big. Iran is not just trying to win by surviving, as the North Koreans and North Vietnamese and Taliban did. Instead, it is envisaging a radically different future in which the US fully withdraws from West Asia, concedes Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, returns Iran’s stolen money that it has been holding for 47 years, ends all sanctions, concedes Iran’s full NPT-enshrined rights to civilian nuclear activity, and pressures “Israel” into permanently ending its genocidal war against its neighbors including Lebanon and Palestine.

*Iran is not listening to the Western establishment “experts.” Instead, Iran relies on its own expertise and know-how. That’s why the Western experts, who thought the US 100-to-1 military spending advantage was insurmountable, got a rude awakening. Iranian leaders have long understood that an impregnable missile-and-drone force could beat a much larger traditional army and navy, and they’ve been planning for that contingency for decades. What’s more, instead of the “gut feelings” that Trump advocates, Iran listens to the inner voice of faith, cultivating and seeking Divine guidance and inspiration.

*Iran is dealing from a position of strength. As John Mearsheimer and other experts noted, Iran essentially won the war within the first 72 hours. That victory has gotten more crushing with every passing day. The US has exhausted its munitions, while Iran just keeps manufacturing more new rockets and drones than it fires. Iran’s assets are protected, buried deep underground, often beneath mountains, while US assets are vulnerable. Iran’s long range rockets and drones would enable it to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed even if the US somehow managed to occupy the whole Iranian shoreline of the Persian Gulf, a feat that might require as many as a million troops and casualties in the tens if not hundreds of thousands. Iran can match any attack on its civilian infrastructure with equal or greater attacks on the infrastructure of US allies. And Iran’s population is united behind its leadership and demands an even more militant stance than the leadership is pursuing, whereas the American people never supported “Trump’s Excellent Iran Adventure” even before its calamitous failure was obvious.

*Iran has all kinds of options. Iran can tighten the squeeze on the global economy to whatever degree it chooses, by calibrating the amount of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz (and, through its AnsarUllah allies, the Bab al-Mandab) and deciding who passes and who doesn’t. It can offer carrots and sticks to regional and global powers. It can get help from Russia and China to whatever degree necessary. It can use land routes, Pakistan-shore routes, and Caspian Sea routes to evade Trump’s highly permeable “wall of steel” blockade. It doesn’t need nukes since it’s got Hormuz, and can therefore use its nuclear capability as leverage, relinquishing any prospective nuclear weapons program in return for concessions. But barring such a deal, thanks to its highly-enriched uranium, it could, if attacked with a nuclear weapon, rapidly build its own nuclear weapons and retaliate (or buy some from North Korea or Pakistan, as Pépé Escobar says they already have).

*Iran is getting the word out with sensational storytelling. Iran can’t take credit for Trump’s catering truck escapade, but they are taking advantage of it with their trademarked LEGO videos that have captured the imagination of the world. Iran has successfully (and accurately) cast itself as the “lovable underdog” handing an obnoxious bully (Trump) his just desserts.

*“Iran is delivering the goods, backing up its bold claims with real results. Unlike Trump, Iran hypes its real accomplishments: Trump claims the Strait is under his control and open for business; Iran slams a drone into one of the very few ships dumb enough to take Trump’s word. Trump claims Iran’s military is “totally obliterated”; Iran points to satellite photos showing that it is the US bases in the region that have been totally obliterated. Trump claims a downed airman has been heroically rescued; Iran releases photos and eyewitness reports showing that what really happened was a botched US attempt to snatch Iran’s uranium that left shot-up US aircraft carcasses strewn across the desert landscape.

Has Mojtaba Khamenei been reading The Art of the Deal? I doubt it. Tony Schwartz’s ideas, which he temporarily credited to Trump, are all-too-obvious distillations of conventional wisdom…tired old bromides, really, that anyone with some time on their hands could easily come up with, even if they weren’t shadowing Donald Trump. We all know it’s best to deal from strength. We all know that “thinking big” (within reason) can sometimes work. We all know that listening to our gut intuition (or better yet, flashes of Divine guidance) is a good idea, and that the experts are sometimes wrong. We all know it’s better to have options than no options. We all know, if we’ve taken any good literature classes, that storytelling rules the world. And we all know that people who back up their bold claims with real results tend to be more successful than those who endlessly b******t…people like Donald Trump, America’s Bullshitter-in-Chief.

Iran is led by people who have undergone the most rigorous academic training—in philosophy and theology—on Earth. They read and write serious books. And when they are forced to wage defensive war, they bring that brainpower to bear.

The USA is led by an airheaded narcissist who once pretended to write a book, but probably has never actually read a serious book in his life. If Trump really did keep a book of Hitler’s speeches at his bedside, as his ex-wife Ivanka claims, it probably served as a talisman rather than material for serious reading.

Mojtaba Khamenei is driving a hard bargain. He knows he has Trump, his father’s murderer, over a barrel.

It seems that Iran is teaching some hard lessons to the purported author of The Art of the Deal.

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