Truth Jihad Radio

Rumble link Bitchute link

Australian author and conspiracy researcher Peter Myers discusses his new book "Holocaust Reparations and the Gaza Genocide: Does One Holocaust Justify Another?" He argues that Netanyahu enabled the October 7th 2023 Al-Aqsa Storm operation in order to trigger a pre-planned genocide, and that Holocaust reparations to Jews should end and instead be given to Palestinians.

Myers writes: “Germany is still paying Holocaust Reparations. Israel has committed its own genocide of Palestinians, but they receive no Reparations.The issue is not money, but the claim of Holocaust Uniqueness. If the Nazi Holocaust is unique, no other genocide is comparable, and Israel cannot be held accountable. Does one Holocaust justify another? To stop the 2-state solution, which the Palestinian Authority favoured, Netanyahu built up the Hamas terrorists and allowed them to receive millions of dollars in cash payments. He was aware of Hamas' attack plan for October 7, he let it happen, and he stood down the IDF, to create consensus for destroying Gaza and ethnic-cleansing the territories. His settler allies want to expel Palestinians, annex their lands, and build the Third Temple on the site of Al Aqsa mosque. After that, their Messiah would rule the world. The West should list them as 'terrorist', as it lists Hamas. Extremists on all sides should be marginalised. The Balfour Declaration, a contract between Britain and Jewry, provided for 'a Jewish home' but not a 'Jewish State.' This book proposes a Hybrid Millet system as a solution to the MidEast Crisis.”

Excerpt from the Interview:

Peter Myers: Well, even with the IDF, the New York Times published an article that Israel had the Hamas attack plan a year ahead of the event. That attack plan didn't give the date of the attack. But there were intelligence warnings only a few months before the attack that it was coming. And the night before the attack, the IDF and Shin Bet had two meetings. One meeting was about midnight and one was about 3 a.m.

So they knew it was coming, but they didn't warn the Nova Festival. And they could have very easily told them to cancel a festival, but they didn't. Now, this was on a holiday weekend in the Jewish religion. And a lot of IDF troops were on holiday leave. Others had been transferred to the West Bank. There were several articles in the Israeli media that said about 100 were transferred to the West Bank. But Seymour Hersh said about 1,600 were transferred. And it left only a very small number, 800 troops for the whole West Bank, for the whole Gaza wall, defending the Gaza wall.

And the head of Egypt intelligence rang Netanyahu. This was reported in Israeli media. Ten days before October 7th, the intelligence minister rang Netanyahu personally and warned him. And Netanyahu showed no interest and later denied getting the call.

And there were some IDF people called spotters who were women, who about 15, I think of them, or maybe there were 20. But anyway, they used to get images from balloons, which could see throughout the Hamas territory right over to the oceans. And they were reporting Hamas training exercises, very obvious exercises, in the weeks before the attack. And they were told, you send these warnings and then helicopters will come. But they didn't come.

And there were a number of reports that the IDF units in the South were stood down for seven hours that day. And there were a number of reports that the IDF units in the South were stood down for seven hours that day. And so there were a number of articles which say, where was the IDF? So a number of IDF people had been transferred. Others were on holiday leave. I mean, they already knew that this attack was coming. So you wouldn't give your soldiers holiday leave at that time, nor would you transfer units to the West Bank, which were much less risky. They had the Hamas attack plan. They didn't have anything similar for the West Bank.

What they were doing was weakening the idea deliberately to allow a chaotic situation to occur And the whole purpose of that was to panic Israelis into committing a genocide, destroying Gaza. That was the plan. I mean, it's not as if it was micromanaged. There were a lot of things that happened that day that hadn't been planned. But given that you had, on the one hand, an idea of stand down—most of their helicopters were not available at that point, that morning. Only two were ready and they were in Haifa in the north. And there were none locally. And a few others got ready after a while and then others during the day. And by the end of the day, it's reported there were 28, the full 28 were operating. But there was a stand down.

So tanks came from the Egyptian border. Helicopters came from Haifa. So they came from some distance away. They took time. But the local IDF was sort of in a chaotic situation. Instead of defending other Israelis, they were just trying to survive themselves when they were attacked.

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

A few days ago, US Vice President JD Vance made a pilgrimage to Dachau, apostatized from Christianity and embraced Holocaustianity—the new official religion of the West in which the Jews have replaced Jesus, the gas chambers have replaced the cross, and Israel has replaced the Resurrection. To climax his conversion, Vance prostrated himself before the holy imaginary gas chambers and uttered the sacred litany: “Never again!”

According to the exoteric doctrine of Holocaustianity, never again means never again a genocide. But even as Vance was intoning “never again,” the government Vance represents was perpetrating genocide—a real and indubitable one this time. And Vance’s boss Trump was blessing that genocide with boastful threats to nuke what remains of Gaza, expel the survivors, and build casinos on the bones of Palestinian women and children.

So what does “never again” really mean, then? The true, esoteric meaning seems to be: Never again will anyone significant in the West arise to challenge Jewish power, or even have the temerity to notice it.

If JD Vance had cojones, he would have put it this way:

“NEVER AGAIN will I allow the Jews to drag me to their infernal holohoax theme park and force me to bow down and kiss kosher tush!”

Now that the livestreamed genocide of Gaza has changed everything, it won’t be long before people start saying things like:

“Never again will we believe in Jewish victimhood.”

“Never again will we allow ourselves to be duped by Jewish Power.”

“Never again will we vote for anyone who tolerates the continued existence of the Genocidal Zionist Entity (GZE, pronounced jeeeeez!)”

“Never again will we allow week-old babies to be circumcised and traumatized into a lifetime of tribal psychopathy.”

“Never again will we believe the victors’ history they taught us in school.”

“Never again will we take the Holocaust story on faith.”

“Never again will we tolerate the persecution of people who don’t take it on faith.”

“Never again will we fall for a Jewish propaganda operation like 9/11.”

And above all:

“NEVER AGAIN…Will a HOLOHOAX Trigger a REAL GENOCIDE!”

Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. So I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at Paypal or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. (Note that you need to do a recurring larger recurring ANNUAL donation not a small monthly one, because SPdonate can’t process anything under $20. For smaller recurring donations use Paypal.)

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

Christians reacted to last week’s interview with Laurent Guyénot by disagreeing with Guyénot’s assertion that the Old Testament is very bad scripture, that Yahweh is basically Satan, and that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah. Patrick Chenal, a Catholic listener, and Ed Kendrick, a spiritual seeker and pioneer of the “Israel did it” school of the 9/11 truth movement, continue the discussion.

Excerpt

Ed Kendrick: I'm kind of a Heinz 57 as far as religious experience, starting with Southern Baptists, moving into Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science as my mother had cancer. We were trying to seek a cure through spirituality. Then moving on to Unity, that's in Lee's Summit, the Unity School of Christianity. And then moving into meditation, Buddhism, Baha'i, Scientology eventually for a year and a half, and I went legal against Scientology to get out. That's an interesting story but we don't need to go there right now. Where I'm at right now is I'm at a bit of variance to contemporary Christians in the context of the I am references. “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Moses at the burning bush, the burning bush suggested he tell his people that I am sent him. And Jesus met on this road by a stranger, replied to the stranger, I am that I am.

The concept being something I encountered about 50 years ago, a pastor named Rocco Errico, who grew up in Mesopotamia, and he's a biblical scholar. And he comes from the Essene standpoint of the definition of I am as a central viewer, the watcher, the witness that we all have in Hindu traditions. It would be what we acknowledge when you say namaste to someone and that you acknowledge that core self that you see in the other in front of you that we all share.

I'm quite uncomfortable with taking things on belief, which by definition requires no evidence. And I'm quite an advocate for things that we can mutually verify, not because of a majority rule or the loudest voice, but things that we can verify when we start talking about epistemology and the relationship of science and spirituality.

Kevin Barrett: Those are two very different perspectives. And they're different from mine, and they're different from Lauren Guyenot’s. We've got a diversity of viewpoints here. Patrick, in a way, your viewpoint, the traditional Catholic viewpoint, is in some ways closer to sort of the long-term Western consensus. There's a doctrine. There are some things that are taken on faith, but there are mechanisms for empirically verifying things. In the first hour, I was just talking about miracles with Eric Wahlberg, And the Catholic Church is well known for doing very extensive investigations of reports of paranormal phenomena that might be accepted as miracles and as evidence for somebody's sainthood. So there is a tradition of empirical research in certain respects in Catholicism, as well as a whole doctrinal approach to what's really going on. And some of that does require faith.

So Patrick, what's your take on sort of the relationship between faith and investigation, skepticism, looking for evidence?

Patrick Chenal: Well, I would point out that the word faith in Hebrew means understanding. And if you understand something, then you know that it's true. And if you know it's true, then you have hope in something, which is trust. And then love comes after that, and that would be mercy.

You were talking about miracles. I'd say one of the greatest miracles in history in regard to Catholicism would be the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. And recently I read the Gospel of Mark, of Jesus meeting the two followers that were on the road to Emmaus, where he appeared and broke bread with them…

When we regard Catholicism, we have the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine, which is the heart of Catholic worship. We go on Sunday to church and we participate in that.

Now, when Jesus met these two on the road to Emmaus, he mentioned to them that he was the one prophesied from the time of Moses and throughout the Old Testament. So, that right there gives evidence against the Marcionite claim that Jesus had nothing to do with the God of the Old Testament, which is quite a stretch. And I think a lot of that comes from people who are trying to justify their behavior. And a lot of times they do it to justify their bad behavior so that they can revert to the old way and say, well, God is just this revengeful, almost like demon-like figure that takes revenge and kills entire peoples, like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, when God saw that they were so evil that he wiped them out.

It's quite a shock to people today, that sort of thing. Why would God do that? It really begs the question that most people who aren't of the faith have, that if God is so good, if God is totally good, then why does he allow evil to occur? And I think this kind of involves sort of magical thinking in a way because it's like saying that God is God and that he doesn't have the power of life and death and the ability to take something that is evil, like, for instance, the death of Jesus, his only begotten son, and make it into something glorious, which is his resurrection.

I

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

Last week's interview with Laurent Guyénot stimulated much discussion and controversy. Some listeners wanted to hear more on miracles and what Islam says about them, while others insisted that Guyénot's critique of Christianity is misguided.

Canadian Muslim author Eric Walberg and I discuss miracles. Walberg discussed anomalous events in general, and miracles in particular, in his review of Jeffrey Kripal's How to think impossibly about souls, UFOs, time, belief, and everything else. Since my doctoral dissertation compares medieval Moroccan miracle stories to contemporary personal experience narratives of anomalous events, I've thought about this topic quite a bit, which is why I didn't want to go off on such a huge tangent during last week's conversation with Laurent Guyénot. So today's the day for the tangent.

Guyénot suggested that Islam is less concerned with miracles, and more compatible with secular rationalism, than Christianity and Judaism. Though he isn't entirely wrong, it's actually a lot more complicated than that. Tune in for the details.

Excerpt addressing Guyénot’s question about Islam and miracles

Kevin Barrett: Laurent Guyénot raised the issue of how religious schools of thought (specifically Islam) think about miracles. In Christianity we know that they are considered religiously significant. When an alleged miracle or a story of a miracle comes to the attention of the church authorities, and they think it might be religiously significant, they investigate it. And it can end up becoming a proof of somebody's sainthood. They believe that miracles are related to whether or not somebody deserves to be canonized as a saint.

And in Islam, there's a parallel process with saints' miracles, which are called karamat al-awliya. But there's no institutional bureaucracy that decides whether or not this particular story is legitimate and whether it's a real karama or miracle. So the two types of religiously significant miracles in Islam are the saints' miracles, the karamat al-awliya, and then secondly, the mujiza.

The mujiza is a miracle of the prophets that God sends as proof of the prophet's mission. In Islam it's widely accepted that the prophet Muhammad peace upon him, the last and seal of the prophets, brought as his main miracle the message itself: the Qur’an. There are stories of other miraculous events around him, but they're all secondary to the main miracle of the message.

So those are the two religiously significant kinds of miracles: the mujiza, the miracle or proof of a prophethood—and that would include all of Jesus' miracles that we discussed, as well as Moses parting the Red Sea, etc.—and then there are the karamat, the saints’ miracles. But then what do you do with all of these other things you're talking about Eric like levitation? Some guy posts a video of himself levitating. How would muslims or christians think about that?

In Islam, it’s generally accepted that there are these kinds of events that may not have the religious significance of a prophet's miracle, a mujizah, or a saint's miracle, a karama. And probably the term that gets used the most often is the khariq al-ada خارق العادة which it means the shredding of habit or habituality. So the idea is that nature has what some scientists think of as laws, but they're not laws. That's just a metaphor. A law is when the government says you have to do this or else. But the the regularities in nature, which are often mathematical, are simply habits. That is, generally, when you let go of something, it falls to the ground. It doesn't just float up into the air. And usually when you lie down on your bed, you stay pressed into the mattress. You don't slowly rise up off the mattress. That's very rare. So if that happens, is it violating a law? No, there's no law. No government told you had to get stuck to the mattress. It's simply something that's inhabitual.

Now, this goes right in line with Hume's critique of causality, where Hume—and then Bishop Berkeley pushed it even further—said that there's no such thing as a cause. There's simply stuff that happens after other stuff happens. So if every time you lie on the bed, you press yourself into the mattress, it's not caused by gravity. There's no cause. It's just that you've observed that every time you ever lay down on the bed, you've gone into the mattress. So it's happened 100 times. The 101st time, you happen to float up into the air. That's an exception to the rule. And in the Islamic view that's a shredding of habituality. So the normal habitual action, or what we expect—that habit is suddenly broken. And something very inhabitable happens, to the extent it's so extreme that habituality is shredded like a veil that's shredded, revealing some deeper reality underneath.

So that's the term that gets applied in general to all such paranormal type events. And it's widely accepted in most parts of the Islamic world traditionally that these types of things do happen. And then there's a discussion about whether the fact that this particular holy man, wherever he goes, people are miraculously healed, and wild, fierce animals come up and roll at his feet and love him. And he knows what's happening at a distance. Maybe he even teleports. There are people here in Morocco who are said to occasionally teleport to Mecca. They don't need to take the plane to do the Hajj pilgrimage. There's one one person in Oujda, Morocco, here on the Algerian border, who went to sleep one night and supposedly woke up in Algeria the next day. He was a shrif or holy man.

So for all of these kinds of stories—whether they're all true or not, well, probably not—and if you want a collection of all these Moroccan stories about wild and crazy events and superstitions and such, read Westermark’s Ritual and Belief in Morocco. It's quite a collection of these kinds of things.

But getting back to Laurent Guyenot’s point: Is Islam less given to being focused on miracles? And the answer is, maybe a little less, in that the Quran is the main miracle of the prophet. That message is the miracle. But I think the actual ontology in the Islamic world is in some ways almost more open to accepting the reality of these inhabitual events, these shreddings of habituality, that occasionally happen. And I think one reason is that the ontology in the Islamic world is based on wujud. And wujud is the word that's translated as being in English. But what wujud actually means is finding. So in that sense there's no such thing as being, outside of finding. That is, everything that exists is found by somebody. You find it: that's how you know it exists. Somebody has to find it. There's no such thing as just pure existence without somebody finding it. And the act of finding is an active process. It’s like what quantum mechanics says. There's nothing there until somebody looks at it. The tree doesn't fall in the forest until somebody hears it. And so that's the implication of the notion of being as finding or wujud.

Stripe debanked me. Currently I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at Paypal. Or better yet, use the free speech platform SPdonate: Note that you need to do a recurring larger recurring ANNUAL donation ($100 suggested) not a small monthly one, because SPdonate can’t process anything under $20. If you want to give small recurring donations, use Paypal.

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

If you live in the West, noticing and pointing out who rules over you can get you censored, deplatformed, bankrupted, fined, or even sent to prison. Fortunately China, now arguably the world’s most powerful country, offers free speech on that particular topic. Hua Bin, a new contributor to the Unz Review, takes advantage by discussing the Jewish stranglehold on the West in relation to his recent articles “The West Is a Demeritocracy” and “US Reeking of the Smell of Fear.”

Transcript selection:

Kevin Barrett: There is a Karl Rove quote to Ron Suskind, I believe it was, after 9/11. And Rove went on this rant saying that, “all of you in the reality-based community are still stuck in that…We're an empire and we create our own reality now.”

Hua Bin: Exactly. I must have seen that three dozen times in various books. Essentially this is the imperialist speaking, right? They create the reality and everybody else lives in the reality that they create. And eventually they reach that point where they don't live in a world of facts, physical laws. Like somehow physical laws are suspended on the date of 9/11, right? Buildings collapsing for no good reason and the laws of physics doesn't apply to airplanes and things of this nature. I like to think those guys actually are sometimes very honest about what they're doing. And frankly, it's out there, right? All the information you need is out there. Very few people actually bother to connect the dots. If you connect the dots, the conclusion is so transparent. It's so just right staring at you in your face, right?

To your point, Karl Rove is essentially kind of opening the book to you. How many people really think through what he said and what's the implications? Especially in the context of what happened with 9/11. The so-called war on terror, was just like such a straightforward case of “so who benefits from that terrorist attack? Did the so-called extremist Muslims benefit from that? Or did the state of Israel benefit from that?”

So go back to your common sense logic and think about those defining moments in history. And you say, like, we're living in a world that's kind of in the movie of Matrix, right? You can decide to take the blue pill, as most people did, right? And say, “I just pretend I'm living this normal life, not living in the body of the Matrix.” If you take the red pill, it's actually pretty easy to see through all that.

To what extent do you think that this (Western decadence, demeritocracy, etc.) is symptomatic of not just a decline in virtue in Western leadership circles per se, but specifically a decline in virtue corresponding with the rise of Jewish power in the West? We certainly see that the Jewish tradition behind the creation of the so-called Jewish state in occupied Palestine is genocidal and mendacious. I translated a book by Laurent Guyernot called From Yahweh to Zion, which makes the case that the roots of that kind of psychopathic lack of ethics go back to the Torah, the holy book, which has influenced this whole Jewish tradition.

And so we see that for sure in the colony in Palestine. But there are those who argue that it's also a factor in the Ukraine war and and in the general bad leadership that we're seeing in the West, the propaganda bubble that you talked about in your demeritocracy article.

And another quotation regarding that that I want to mention to you, or I did earlier before the show, was Alan Hart, the former BBC lead correspondent for the Middle East, claimed that a very high-level Israeli, who may have been Golda Meir, told him that “our problem is that we believe our own propaganda.” Everybody believes their own propaganda but (here again) Jews are “just like everybody else only more so” as the saying goes. And in this case in terms of believing their own propaganda they really excel at that. We have an unbroken tradition of this tribe whose holidays are all the same: “they tried to kill us, we won, let’s eat.” So for thousands of years their story is that these evil other tribes hated them and wanted to kill them for no particular reason. And so the heroic Jews then fought those tribes and genocided them, like with Purim in the book of Esther. They won. And so, hey, it's a story of success. And then that goes right on into modern times, where we have “the Russians fought us with all their pogroms and so on. There were six million Jews killed in the Russian pogroms. But then we won. There was the Bolshevek revolution. And then the Nazis tried to kill us in the gas chambers, and we won.” And all of these stories are about probably about equally reliable. That is, the details of the Purim story are probably just about as reliable as the details of the gas chamber story or any of these stories.

But not only do ordinary Jewish people mostly believe these stories, or pretend to at least on their Jewish holidays in some cases, but they've seized tremendous power and have now inflicted these kinds of stories, especially the Holocaust story—and the 9/11 story, for that matter—on the world, as almost a new religion.

And so this believing one's own propaganda thing is so far out of control in Jewish culture. I wonder to what extent that has perhaps metastasized and killed the quality of leadership in the West in general.

I think there's certainly a huge extent of that. Let’s be honest: They persevered. They were driven out of their ancestral homeland and they managed not to integrate. They managed not to assimilate into any of the societies, right? They kept their tradition, their language, their identity, and their plan for the long term. And they take every advantage the whole society provides in terms of...influence campaigns, constructing a society that's beneficial to them or to their particular set of skills. I think if you read Henry Ford’s The International Jew, the connection of his essays back in the 1920s, he was mostly talking about Jewish people, not from a religious perspective, but from a business perspective. But he was kind of describing the the manipulativeness and the kind of reliance on gimmicks, on tricking your competitor and all that.

It sounds like Donald Trump.

Yeah. He's a dedicated Zionist. He actually probably wanted to be born a Jew. Like some of his best buds are Jewish, right? In New York real estate..,

His mentor was Roy Cohn.

Yeah, exactly. So I think, you know, let me go back to the Jewish, you know, I think uniqueness. I actually think they're very unscrupulous. They're very smart, very intelligent, but they really...don't seem to have any moral mooring, right? It's probably because of religion. To my knowledge, like Talmud never really talks about virtue, about being good. They never even talk about afterlife. It’s all about maximizing your life in this life. Whatever you do to get ahead is permissible.

Wealth, power, and progeny. And progeny is the only immortality.

Yeah, exactly. Grabbing, kind of enriching yourself, all those are virtues, I think, in their minds. And that's very different from almost all the teachings in other religions when they describe a better world in the afterlife, so you have to do good in this life in order to get into that better world in the afterlife. But that seems to be lacking. I don't want to be definitive about it because I don't want to pretend that I've read the Talmud from cover to cover. But from what I hear, the key philosophies from Talmud seem to be very Machiavellian. I'm even a little surprised that Niccolo Machiavelli was not Jewish. Because his words are like music to like to the inner self of the average Jew.

That's what Michael Ledeen said. Michael Ledeen, one of the nastiest of the neocons, wrote a book on Machiavelli, and he did say that Jews are inherently Machiavellian, and Machiavelli resonates with Jews. So yeah, he put it right out there.

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

“Israel,” a euphemism for the genocide of Palestine, is deliberately sabotaging the ceasefire in hopes of resuming its genocide of Gaza. Netanyahu is brazenly violating the terms of the ceasefire. According to The New York Times’ Israeli sources, Israel has failed to keep its promises, including sending hundreds of thousands of tents into Gaza. (It’s winter there, and Palestinian women and children are dying of starvation and exposure.)

Hamas, which Israeli officials admit has complied perfectly with the ceasefire agreement, has responded to Israel’s violations by saying that it will delay further hostage releases until Israel stops violating the agreement. Meanwhile, the Jewish-dominated Western mainstream media is lying outrageously by accepting Netanyahu’s framing the situation as “Hamas threatens to break the agreement by not releasing hostages.”

The proverb “the Jew cries out as he strikes you” is inadequate in the face of this kind of genocidal mendacity. (“We Jews are the victims! The evil goys won’t release our hostages! They’re the ones violating the ceasefire! Now we must righteously exterminate them! Those women and children are Amalek! They’re just animals!”) Since Jewish billionaires own the West, starting with its politicians and media, it’s all but illegal to state the obvious: All of this lying genocidal mania is quintessentially Jewish. The Torah is the most racist, genocidal book in the history of the world, and the tribe formed by it is the most racist, genocidal tribe ever to disgrace the face of the Earth.

The proverb “never make a deal a Jew” may not be as witty as “the Jew cries out as he strikes you,” but it does offer sound advice that the Palestinians should have taken long ago. By engaging in the Oslo peace process in good faith, the Palestinians and their regional supporters naively set themselves up for the accelerated genocide they’re now experiencing. The Oslo Accords were never worth the paper they were printed on, because the Jewish State, formed by centuries of demonic Torah-Talmud programming, is psychopathic. And you can’t make a deal with a psychopath.

Now the Resistance faces yet another quintessentially Jewish betrayal of an agreement that was supposed to stop a genocide. Clearly the tribe whose ethics or lack thereof were formed by the Torah-Talmud is supremely non-agreement-capable, and has been for millennia, as the Russians have long known. The only way to deal with them is to make sure they never, ever get the upper hand. And if by some supreme misfortune they do get the upper hand, as they have in the West during the past few centuries, you need to make “getting it back” your top priority…maybe your only priority.

During our argument on his radio show yesterday, Richie Allen was offended when I blurted out that the collapsing ceasefire and resuming genocide reinforces the “never make a deal with a Jew” stereotype. I responded that I’m tired of belaboring the obvious point that “not all Jews” are Zionists, or non-agreement-capable, or genocidal, or whatever. There are plenty of wonderful people who’ve been born into Jewish families, and I’ve been privileged to know dozens of them. I’ve even known a couple of converts to Judaism who were good folks. But the Jewish collective, the tribe, harbors a pernicious racist, genocidal ideology and is given to pathological lying at a level that beggars belief. Anti-genocide fighters are at war with “the Jews” in the same way that anti-Nazis were at war with “the Nazis” and anti-Communists were at war with “the Communists” (even though many if not most Nazis and Communists were nice people and often even interpreted their doctrines in a relatively benign way).

That’s my take, anyway. It definitely isn’t Richie Allen’s.

So what’s yours?

Transcript begins:

That's The Hollies, or was The Hollies, and long, cool woman in a black dress. This is The Richie Allen Show, live from the heart of the great city of Salford. I'm Richie Allen, and Kevin Barrett is standing by. Kevin, welcome back. Kevin is an academic, he's a broadcaster writer, and a great friend of the programmes. Kevin, I just want to say a quick hello to you, and I'm going to read part of a statement by the Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, if you don't mind. How are you, by the way?

I'm doing okay, but having Netanyahu say hello to me instead of Richie Allen is actually kind of a weird way to start the conversation.

It would be nice, wouldn't it? It actually would be nice, but these people are never going to speak to us, Kevin. Netanyahu has just given a statement to the press in Israel. It's been picked up by Reuters and every other news agency. He said, I'm going to paraphrase this very quickly. “I've concluded a four-hour discussion at the political security cabinet, outraged at the three hostages and their condition last Saturday, yada, yada. We welcome Trump's demand for the release of our hostages by noon on Saturday and welcome his revolutionary vision for the future of Gaza.” And here's the important part. “In light of Hamas's announcement of its decision to violate the agreement and not release our hostages, last night I ordered the IDF to amass forces inside and around the Gaza Strip. The operation is taking place at these hours. It will be completed in the very near future. If Hamas doesn't return our hostages by noon on Saturday, the ceasefire will be terminated and the IDF will return to intense fighting until Hamas is finally defeated. What's your response to that?

Well, obviously, Hamas can't be defeated because it's Islamic resistance to Zionist genocide. And almost two billion people support that, including everybody here in Morocco, even the bought and paid for government people who run the fake official policy here in Morocco. If any of them had the slightest chance to stick a knife in Netanyahu's back, they would do it. Everyone hates these people, and increasingly not just around the global South, but in the corridors of power in the West, and to some extent, even in the occupied USA. So I think that this threat to resume high-speed genocide of Gaza…who knows where it will actually go. But all of this is the whole Zionist movement lashing out in its death throes. The whole world has now seen that Zionism is just a euphemism for the genocide of Palestine, that so-called Israel is just a euphemism for the genocide of Palestine. That's all it's ever been. That's all it ever will be. Virtually the entire world's population despises this genocide and these disgusting psychopaths who are perpetrating it. And they are going down. And the only question is just how badly and bloodily they go down.

Isn't the question actually how did they go down? Because let's say for once, I'm not going to spend any time arguing with you. OK, I'm going to say, OK, it's a disgusting genocide. Of course it is. Crimes against humanity, unspeakable crimes. You have South Africa, you have Scandinavian countries, you have the Republic of Ireland. It's terrible. But how is it going to be defeated? I'm not here to be pessimistic. I'm going to give you it as I see it. Nobody is going to stop it, Kevin. If they decide from noon on Saturday to begin flying over Gaza and dropping bombs on people who are now sitting on mounds of rubble, on the graves of their children and their widows, nobody in the world is going to stop it. All the words about genocide, all the threats, all the ICCs, nothing is going to stop it, Kevin, is it? Let's be clear about that. If they want to do it, they'll do it, and it ain't going to be stopped.

Indeed, and they'll be digging their graves even a little deeper. And that means that when people start killing Zionist Jews, they will do it in a more slow and painful fashion.

Who's going to do that, Kevin? Who's going to do that?

Everybody is.

But who's everybody?

Everybody. The prophecy in Islam is that at some point the Jews are going to get so far out of control that every rock and every tree on earth that has a jew hiding behind it will say “there's a Jew hiding behind me come and kill him.” And I think we're almost there.

What about the Jews that were in Manchester on Saturday condemning it? What about those Jews?

Well, I hope the rocks and trees don't shout out about them. I hope they hide successfully. In fact, I will personally hide them.

You see I don't believe in God and I don't believe in the scriptures. Maybe I'd be better off if I did. Maybe life would be easier for me. What I see is... the inevitable situation, because I do believe this is the Greater Israel Project laid out, laid bare for everybody in the world to see. The problem I have with it is nothing will stop this happening. If they want, if this is the end or if this is the pinnacle of the Greater Israel Project, and that is to completely rid the region, to rid Palestine of Palestinians, it looks like it's going to happen.

No, I don't, I don't think it will. They could start bombing again and killing hundreds and even thousands more people in Gaza, but nobody's going to leave. And after a certain amount of more killing, the world will get so fed up that they'll have to stop again, just like they did before. So it'll be just a more of what we saw before. And ultimately they'll have to surrender as they already did. They surrendered once and said, “We lost. Our mission in this war was to destroy Hamas and to get the hostages back by military force, and we failed. So we lost, we surrendered.” And they signed the surrender ceasefire. And now if they tear up the surrender ceasefire and say, oh, no, we're going to go back and start murdering more civilians and pretending it has something to do with getting rid of Hamas, even though every time we kill somebody in Gaza, 100 more Hamas members spring up, both in Gaza and all around the world. And sympathy for Hamas grows everywhere. Here in Morocco, I mean, everybody's ready to go and join Hamas if they get the chance. Not everybody's ready to actually leave their lives and do it. But basically, I don't think there's a single person here in Morocco, aside from a handful of Jews, who wouldn't be just amazingly proud and so grateful to God if somebody from their family could go and die by killing 100 Zionists. That's how people feel here.

But you don't know how the Jews living in Morocco feel. They might be every bit as opposed to the genocide as the Jews in London, Manchester, Birmingham. We got to be fair about this. Look, I'm going to put this to you. It's an old argument between you and me, but we don't have to dwell on this. You know how I feel about the region. I've been consistent my entire working life, even when I was working on commercial radio. I never believed Israel had any right to exist, but then every country that ever came into being came into being through the displacement of one group of people. by another through murder, through genocide. Israel is there. Tough s**t, Paddy, is what I've said. I don't want that to be the situation. But it's the case. What am I saying? What's my point here? We've had this out before. Hamas must have known post October 7th, 2023, what would happen. So maybe 100,000 civilians are dead there, women and children. Why doesn't Hamas call Israel's bluff? Show a bit of humanity. And I don't know how many hostages they've got, but if they've got 20, say, well, I'll tell you what, we'll release the 20. Because if they don't, they'll be condemning those people we spoke of a moment ago.

I saw a woman today, Kevin, I actually cried, mate, and I have a heart of stone, me, because I'm so cynical. Like yourself, I've seen everything in 30, 40 years. I saw a lady sitting on a pile of rubble with a makeshift kettle, a Palestinian woman. If I talk about it, I'll break down. She had a cat in her hand, and she was feeding the cat. Now, if they don't release those hostages, those maniacs are going to kill that woman, Kevin. So forgive my bad language, release the f*****g hostages. Do it now, right?

Absolutely not. When a bully is doing horrendous, psychopathic, murderous things to innocent people and says, “guys, you all do exactly what I tell you, or I'm going to continue doing these things,” you can either let that bully take over your world or…Or if you can take, if there's a one in 10 trillion trillion chance that you might actually ultimately prevail against that bully, you have to try. \It's not your fault that the sadistic psychopath is doing what he's doing. Your job and all of our jobs is to resist that psychopath and to do everything we can to try to stop him.

But don't the Palestinians in Gaza get a say, Kevin? You're not going to stop him by surrendering to him. But shouldn't the Palestinians sitting in Gaza tonight, right, probably freezing their backsides off wondering what the hell is going to happen after Saturday. Shouldn't they have a say in it? Shouldn't the Palestinians themselves have a say in it? I know it's hardly suitable for a referendum. There's nothing there. There's nothing, no infrastructure. The BBC is running drone footage of Gaza. It's horrendous. I've never seen anything like it. It's like some post-apocalyptic sci-fi movie. It really is, right? Shouldn't those people who've come back in there with tents and blankets, shouldn't they have a say in whether the hostages are released or not?

The Palestinian people and the people of Gaza have had their say. And I've been watching reports from Gaza straight through for a year and a half now throughout this genocide. And they're very firm with “gonna stay here and we'll die if we have to. We're not going anywhere. We're resisting. We support the resistance. We are going to to stay here, and if they're going to kill us they're going to kill us.” That's that's what I've been hearing from all the Palestinians. So the rest of us have the job to support that by absolutely any means necessary that has the slightest chance of being successful. And in fact, anything we do has a very good chance of being successful, because ultimately genocide, in an era of pervasive media, including social media, is completely untenable. And the people who are committing this genocide, they've already signed their death warrants. And the only question is how quickly and how brutally they die.

You're listening to Kevin Barrett. You'll find Kevin online. He writes for unz.com. He writes on truthjihad.com. He's got a Substack account, kevinbarrett.substack.com. Do subscribe to him. Do read him there, whether you agree with what you're hearing or whether you don't. We're talking about the future of Gaza. We got into this last night with Ryan Christian from The Last American Vagabond. I asked him: And living there looks to be impossible unless you're prepared to live at the And living there looks to be impossible unless you're prepared to live at the absolute ultimate kind of subsistence level, right? It's going to take, who knows how many years, but let's say a decade or 15 years to rebuild it. That for me spells danger. Is there a danger that eventually the Palestinian people, or enough of them, will become so miserable, so beaten down by the awful reality of it, that they might seek refuge in elsewhere in the Middle East, Kevin, or they might seek refuge in Europe? What do you reckon?

Well, there's a possibility that some number of the remaining 1.7 million people, which, I believe, is what the American authorities are saying—which means that half a million people have been murdered in the genocide, which means the numbers are off by a factor of 10. But among the 1.7 to perhaps up to 2 million people who are still alive there today, I would imagine that a certain number would perhaps decide to leave. But I think it would be a minority, probably a pretty small minority, that would even be interested in doing that. And whether the majority that is determined to stay there and die, if necessary, as shahids (martyrs) and reach the highest stations of paradise for standing strong in a demonstration of the greatest heroism ever in the whole history of humanity, would allow those who wish to leave to do it logistically…I don't know, but I don't think so. I don't think it's doable. I think the only way to get the people of Gaza out of Gaza would be to kill them. And I think long before Israel reaches the point of being able to kill them all, they will be forced by various combinations of global public opinion and military pressure and economic pressure and so on and so forth to stop.

So yeah, I think divine intervention…When I ask this, I'm asking it respectfully, by the way. I think we've known each other too long. I'm not being glib when I say this. You think divine intervention, don't you?

No, I don't actually, Richie. I mean, I think that basically what we do in this life is just a test for the next life. And so the divine aspect of this is that these heroes in Gaza who are resisting the evil of the Zionist Antichrist are going to be rewarded, whether in this life or the next. But one always prays to be rewarded in the next life where the reward is that much greater.

But in terms of the strategic picture in this world, I'm not depending on miracles. I've never been worried about miraculous interventions at all. I don't believe in miraculous interventions in that sense. I mean, there probably are a few, but... Like when Trump's ear is supposedly nicked by a bullet, I don't believe that's a divine miracle, which is what it would have to be for that story to be true. I'm 100% sure that that was fake. There was no actual bullet that came anywhere near Donald Trump that day on July 13th. So I don't believe in miracles and divine inventions like that.

My prediction was that Hamas would win this war because the Zionists would fail to achieve their objectives of destroying Hamas and getting their hostages back by military means. I made that prediction in mid-October of 2023, and it's been borne out. A lot of people argued with me and said, “no, the Israelis, they'll flood the tunnels if they have to. They'll kill everybody in Gaza. They'll expel the whole population from Gaza. They'll find a way to make sure that Egypt and Jordan take the people, blah, blah, blah.” I said, no, that's just not going to happen. The Israelis are going to lose.

I wasn't depending on divine intervention in that analysis. That's just your basic analysis that almost the great majority of the strategic experts of this region all shared. It wasn't any big secret. The only reason that you didn't hear that that was obviously what was going to happen, Richie, is because you're stuck in the Western Zionist-controlled bubble media, which has blown up a completely psychotic bubble and put out grossly unrealistic information for Westerners to imbibe. And they're kind of hallucinating on that toxic concoction.

But no, just based on elementary strategic considerations, there's no way to get those people out of Gaza other than killing them. And you can't kill them. I guess Israel, the Israeli leadership could say, OK, Kevin's right. We're doomed. Israel is going to go up in a nuclear fireball and every Jew on Earth is going to get tracked down and murdered even already, just based on what we've already done. So we might as well make it even a thousand times worse or a thousand times more likely that that's what's going to happen by killing everybody in Gaza.

But they're not that…I think that their attitude is, “well, we might still find a way out of this. And we know very well that if we actually did kill everybody in Gaza, that there wouldn't be any Israel for sure in like 10 or 15 years. Kevin's prediction would obviously come true even faster than otherwise.”

So just based on this realistic picture of what's achievable with normal means, there's just no way that they can possibly get those people out. Mark my words on that. Just like I said, “mark my words” back in October 2023, when I said Israel would not destroy Hamas, they will not get their hostages back, they will end up having to give up and it will be a defeat.

I get my...Information from a wide variety of sources, Mr. Barrett, by the way, Professor Barrett, not just the BBC, obviously. I mean, you're here because I get some information from your broadcast and your substack. Look, I want to talk about cognitive dissonance, which is something that interested you greatly during your academic career. It's very important. I want to talk about it. Not in the context of Trump, but I want to finish on Palestine for the moment with this, because listeners are screaming at me to put it to you.

The Times of Israel, Haaretz, and other publications have said that it has been the policy of the Netanyahu regime and others to prop up Hamas, to support Hamas, to provide it with material support, because that was one guaranteed way of scuppering any possibility of there ever being a two-state solution. Is Hamas a Zionist creation? A lot of very clever people think it is, and you know this. I'm sure you disagree with them, but a lot of people think Hamas is controlled opposition. What do you say?

There's a certain amount of truth in the fact that the Zionists have played both sides and tried to divide and conquer the Palestinians. Their policy has always been to try to prevent the Palestinians from becoming united. And so back when the PLO had very big support, nearly unanimous support in Palestine, and was waging an armed struggle of justified resistance against the slow motion Zionist genocide, the Zionist leadership was willing to try to foster or tolerate other resistance approaches that they thought would then start feuding with PLO. So at that time, the 90s, it made sense for the Zionists to listen to Sheikh Yassin and give him a little bit of money when he wanted to start an Islamic resistance group. And based on their understanding of him, they hoped that the outcome of that would be to divide the Palestinians and neuter the resistance. But it wasn't very long before they realized that that was a huge mistake.

For the details, you can read Ronan Bergman's book, Rise and Kill First. Bergman is the unofficial stenographer, some would say the official stenographer of the Mossad. And he explains in great detail in that book, which I think is probably 80% reliable, that every time they've come up with some brilliant strategy to neuter one head of the resistance hydra, such as by creating Hamas as a rival to the PLO, then it's come back to bite them. And every time they've killed one leader, a stronger leader has arisen to replace them. There strategy has been a loser. And so that's the case with Hamas, which became the real Palestinian resistance organization among many real resistance organizations, when the PLO made the fatal mistake of believing Zionist promises that the Israelis were in fact committed to the Oslo peace process, which was unambiguously about the Zionists trading the territory they'd stolen in 1967 for peace. And had the Zionists been willing to withdraw from that territory and allow a Palestinian state to be created on the territory that they stole in 1967, as they promised when they began their Oslo peace process, the whole region would be peaceful today. But instead, as we know, you know, never make a deal with a Jew, Richie. I hate to say that. It sounds racist—

But it is. But it is. It's beneath you to say that.

I don't care.

Why do you not? But I mean, what you do is you sacrifice a lifetime's work by speaking like that. There are people who might be hearing you for the first time and they hear that. And I understand you're frustrated. It is a genocide.

They just don't understand the kind of people that they're dealing with.

I have Jewish friends, Kevin. I have a lot of Jewish friends and I think they, you can't refer to people like that. It's terrible. It's beneath you to do that. That's my opinion. It's wrong. Okay.

Well, in any case, uh, we're seeing a genocide being perpetrated—

But not by Jews, Kevin.

The Jewish state, on behalf of the world's Jews—the state that acts on behalf of all of the world's Jews is perpetrating a genocide right now.

You don't get to say that, Kevin. You don't get to say that. No, no, no. There are millions of Jewish people living around the world, right? And they are Jewish because they observe the faith of Judaism.

They have 90% support in Israel, and they have support everywhere where there are Jews in the world.

Well, talk about Israelis then. Refer to them as Israelis.

It's fine if a few Jews with no power and no influence decide to be nice people, that's wonderful. But all powerful Jews, But all powerful Jews, all Jews working with that tribal Jewish mentality are part of this genocide.

You know what that sounds like to me?

We need to start talking about how these people have been conditioned by their religion.

I'm happy to talk about that all day long. This is a two-way conversation. You're talking about Israelis. And you're talking about powerful Jewish business people and financiers who support the state of Israel. But there are millions of Jewish people around the world who don't deserve to be referred to. Because I know you better. That sounds like the crap you'd have heard from the KKK 30, 40 years ago.

What I've discovered is that the people that have been libeled as anti-Semites during the last 100 years of history, especially in the United States, but to some extent elsewhere as well, were right. And they were the good people. And the bad people were the people who were libeling them. It's really pretty simple. It turns out that everything that they told us about Hitler was actually true about organized Jewish power. I mean, in terms of racism, in terms of genocidal intent, in terms of a project that ultimately intends to try to take over the world and destroy all the lesser beings, that's who the real Hitler is: Netanyahu and all of his friends. And they've been created by a religion that is racist to its core.

It's fair to equate the crimes of Netanyahu's regime with the crimes of the Nazis, who killed everybody, people with learning disabilities, people with various handicaps, Romanies Gypsies, Russians, Jews. Of course it is, they'll have that all day long. But I'm not having that Jews are some sort of clique that are united by their desire for world domination because it just ain't true, Kevin. And we can look at, let's look at the COVID bollocks. Let's look at what happened in 2020. Nobody was more oppressed during that period than Israeli Jews or Israelis with their green card system and their arresting people for going to coffee shops and all the rest of it. Look, I want to get off Palestine for a minute because, um, I know the time is short and I wanted to ask you about something that you had a lot of interest in during your academic career. Some of our listeners might not know this, but Kevin was basically scapegoated and ran out of his job as a lecturer, as a professor, because he had the outright cheek, would you believe it, to ask his students to consider everything they were hearing in the news about geopolitics and about September the 11th and stuff like that. Of course, he did the right thing. He said, look, take everything you hear with a pinch of salt. Look into it for yourself. Who benefits? Why would some country do this? Why would this and all that? Of course, the media got wind of it. And because he was asking his students to think critically, it ultimately ran him out of teaching. And that's how we got to know each other many, many years ago….

Read the full transcript at my Substack where Stripe debanked me. Currently I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at Paypal…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Note that you need to do a recurring larger recurring ANNUAL donation ($100 suggested) not a small monthly one, because SPdonate can’t process anything under $20.

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

Historian Laurent Guyénot, author of From Yahweh to Zion, returns to discuss his two most recent articles, “The Disraeli Enigma” and “The Cursed Nation and the Temple of Satan.”

On a related note, see my argument with Jonas Alexis, who negatively reviewed From Yahweh to Zion in the new issue of Culture Wars.

Excerpts from the transcript:

Laurent Guyenot: I'm not fighting against Christianity and I'm definitely not fighting against Jesus. I feel Jesus is an incredibly inspiring heroic figure. “Jesus is a Palestinian.” We need Jesus. I'm not trying to deny the importance of Jesus as a central figure in our civilization.

But my priority now became to understand Israel. And I became convinced that you cannot understand modern Israel if you don't understand that modern Israel is the same as ancient Israel. And that's a big disagreement with Christians (who say) “modern Israel has nothing to do with the people of ancient Israel, who were holy people. Yes, they wanted to genocide the Amalekites, but that's because the Amalekites were really, really, really bad.”

I'm fed up with these kinds of things. I feel Netanyahu wants to genocide the Amalekites exactly as Moses wanted to genocide the Amalekites. And I feel it's really way too late now to start to defend ancient Israel. Ancient Israel is just as demonic as modern Israel. And if you don't come to the point of realizing this, you just cannot understand what Israel is. You think “it's because they're Zionists, they're not real Jews in any way, they're Ashkenazi Jews.” And you find all kinds of excuses to protect the essence of Israel.

The essence of Israel is in the Bible, is in the Torah. I don't especially want to burn the Torah, but I want to put it in a museum or in a library together with Homer and this kind of thing. It's an interesting book, but I definitely don't want anything to do with it as the story of God choosing the Jews. I don't believe God chose the Jews. If I talk to Christians, I want to help them to find a way to get out of this dilemma.

And one way, I suggest to them is (to ask): Did Jesus really claim to be the Messiah? Because it doesn't really matter. You say, well, there's the true Messiah or the military Messiah. In any case, if Jesus said, yes, I am the Messiah, that means he stands within the paradigm of the chosen people. Because if God sends the Messiah, that means He needs the holy people and so on. From the historical perspective, that of historians of Jesus, it's debatable. because there is this, notion of the messianic secret. Sometimes Jesus sounded like he said, yes, I'm the Messiah, but don't say it, don't tell it to anyone—which of course, from the historian's point of view, means that he didn't say “I'm the Messiah.” It's the disciples who said he was the Messiah after he died. It's very simple ogic that leads us to conclude that, in fact, Jesus rejected the title of Messiah.

So we can say we can basically become Marcionist. That's why I offer to the Christian the only way you can get out and start to save Christianity. Because if you continue to worship ancient Israel, you are worshipping the Devil. If you think Yahweh is God, you are confusing God with the Devil. So the only way you can get out of this catastrophic situation is to understand that Jesus is not the Messiah. Jesus is a guy who is like Socrates, a guy who is completely 100% loyal to the truth, to what he saw as true, to the point of sacrificing his life.

In a few days, we will have the anniversary of the self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell. I was thinking about this today. I felt I have to write something.

Jesus was like that. He could not stand to see this evil society. He spoke out or — he's not like Aaron Bushnell, but the impulse to be totally, 100%, in harmony with what you believe, you know, and going all the way: That's what Jesus was. So he was destroyed. He is precisely the saint, the patron saint, of people like you and me. Or at least we should try to imitate him in the sense of fighting against Israel to the point of being ready to pay the price.

Jesus, by the way, was crucified not by the Jews, but by the empire. They use the empire to destroy their enemy.

So I get carried away. But what I wanted to say fundamentally is that I feel it's wrong to defend ancient Israel. It's wrong to excuse Moses for having to kill the Amalekites. Now, everybody can see what is Israel. So you have no excuse any more. And we hear Netanyahu say “the Gaza people are Amalek.” We have no more excuses for the Torah. We have to go to the root of the problem. The root of the problem is the Torah.

Kevin Barrett: There is an alternative between orthodox Christianity, which embraces the so-called Old Testament or Torah as an inerrant holy book—at least traditional Christians do that—and the Marcionite position, which is basically your position, which is that the God of the Old Testament is the Devil.

And that third position alternative is the one that I, of course, adhere to. It is based on the Islamic interpretation that, number one, the Torah or Old Testament has been distorted by the human transmitters, namely the Jewish cognitive elite. They turned a series of the divine revelations that had been given to try to guide this deeply misguided tribe back to the straight path, but they kept rebelling. They're the most stiff-necked, obdurate, basically evil, let's face it, satanic group of people ever.

For Muslims the record of the Jewish people that comes down in the Torah and then is totally revised by the Quran gives us the image of a people who are not good people. No Muslim would ever defend the ancient nation of Israel, far from it. We see the ancient nation of Israel as a deeply troubled and misguided nation that got prophetic revelations attempting to bring it back to truth and justice. But instead of accepting the message of truth and justice, that is, the message of God, who is truth, al-Haqq, the Jewish cognitive elite took their metaphysical chops—and maybe not just a kind of a logical, rational understanding, but a kind of mystical ability. And they turned it to black magic, to evil. In other words, they were getting the message that should have guided them back to the straight path. And they kept rebelling against it satanically. And then when they wrote down their book, they changed the message. And so, yes, indeed, you do have plenty of demonic influence coming through that book.

So that third position then would still see Jesus as a divine prophet, and maybe in a sense, the Messiah prophet, the one who totally clarifies what's been at stake through the entire Torah, which is the truth of God, God's truth, coming through prophets, and being expressed to a deeply evil people to try to give them one more chance to straighten up. And the only sense in which they're privileged or chosen is that they've been given so many chances, but all it does is give them more chances to damn themselves.

So that's the Quranic view and that's my view.

Well, that's not my view, Kevin, as you know, but I understand and I’m willing to dialogue. But basically, my view now is that this whole prophetic tradition is bogus. And all eschatology…I feel eschatology is meaningless. I don't understand Hegel very well, but I feel like I'm a Hegelian. I feel there is meaning in history, but it has nothing to do with the Abrahamic tradition. I believe in God very strongly, but I try more and more to separate myself from the tradition considering God as a person who chooses some people or other, or who speaks, gives orders, gives laws and these kind of things. At my age, I have to follow my spiritual intuition, and it tells me to run away as far as possible from that and try to re-understand the Greco-Roman cosmic God of the Stoics, the understanding that God is everything. God is...God is not a person outside that you can relate to, person to person, and you can pray to him (as a person).

That's the Islamic view too, though. The Islamic view is identical with that. It (the Islamic view) is like with the Godhead in Christianity as opposed to the personal God. That's another thing Islam corrects: Misguided anthropomorphism of God as some human male patriarch. That's not the view in Islam. Ar-Rahman ar-Rahim, the first two tangible characteristics of God in Islam, come from a root that has to do with the womb. And rahmah, mother love, is the root. So if anything, if you had to pick male or female, you would go with female because absolute love is mother love.

But the Quran consistently explains that ultimately God is far beyond any human characteristics. SubhanAllah, Allahu Akbar—these kinds of well-known formulas—that's what they're expressing. And so once again, the problem in this (Middle Eastern monotheistic) tradition that you identify so well was solved 1400 years ago.

Let's talk a little bit about your take on circumcision. Your article takes on the Cainite/Kenite hypothesis, the notion that Jews have considered themselves chosen precisely because deep inside they feel themselves cursed. So chosenness is a reaction formation to feeling cursed. Why do they feel cursed? (Their ancestor) Cain killed Abel. So to make up for this, they start doing child sacrifices: the eighth day child sacrifice of the firstborn male. And then at some point they substitute circumcision for the eighth day sacrifice. And this leaves a trauma on Jewish children.

They grow up with this horrible unconscious baggage, this PTSD. When they were just tiny infants, their bond with their mother was badly damaged when this evil stranger took them and tortured them by cutting at their most sensitive part of their anatomy. And so they grow up with this memory, a buried unconscious memory. And then they're brainwashed into their tribe by the rabbis who say: “There's this evil stranger out there, the goy, the non-Jew, who wants to do unspeakable things to you, put you in gas chambers and drive you into the sea and throw you in the well and so on.”

That resonates with the Jewish kid, because he has a buried memory of the evil stranger who did this horrible thing to him. The irony is that it was the damn rabbi who's brainwashing him who actually did it.

And you don't want to go into the bathhouse with that rabbi either, I'm telling you.

(Laughing)Yeah, exactly. Well, you know, I wrote a theory, which is a theory. There's no hard evidence. But it's an interesting theory. And I do believe there is some truth to the idea that they feel chosen, but deeper than that, they feel cursed.

And I like to quote Leo Pinsker, a forerunner of Theodore Herzl. He was a proto Zionist who around 1860 wrote Auto Emancipation, a short book calling for the return to Palestine. He wrote once, “the Jews are the people chosen by universal hatred.” Meaning that “the whole world hates us. That's our destiny. Eternally, it will be like this. That's why we have to go to Palestine and live among ourselves.”

That was his main argument, basically: “We are cursed. We are the cursed people. We are chosen by universal hatred.”

So I feel there is this duality in Jewishness. They feel chosen, but basically they feel chosen because they feel hated by the whole of human kind. And it's kind of vicious circle. And therefore, the question arises, why does humankind hate us? “They're jealous because we're chosen and they are not chosen.” This kind of duality is a constant.

There is also the German author Theodore Lessing. He wrote Self-Hatred and claimed that all Jews hate themselves deep inside to some degree. There is a universal aspect of Jewishness is self-hatred. That was his point. So hat's an interesting idea which connects maybe to depth psychology’s trying to understand the psychopath. He's a person who hates himself profoundly. He wants to hide himself because he knows he's evil. He knows he has no heart. So he has to lie constantly because deep inside he feels cursed. He feels he has no soul. So he wants to destroy the souls of others because he feels himself deprived of a soul. At least that's one angle to try to make sense of it.

And then it connects to a historical possibility that we're dealing with a tribe that gets fossilized into a prehistoric mentality—a tribe who felt cursed because their ancestor killed his brother. Or more probably their ancestors killed the whole tribe. Because in the Bible, Cain means the Kenites. Every name represents their descendants, the people that (trace their ancestry to that figure).

So the story of Cain and Abel probably was a way to tell the story of two related tribes. And one of them killed the other, which means exterminated them. That's a possibility really, because one of the incredible things about Jews is the sense that they are the same today as they were 3000 years ago. So it's really a fossil civilization that spiritually never moved. Maybe something happened 3000 years ago that created some kind of trauma or some kind of sense of cursedness or some kind of collective trauma that made them completely fossilized. And then the fossilization was probably reinforced by the Bible itself. In the Bible, you have stories of prehistoric warfare. A tribe genociding another tribe. That Bronze Age ethic.

The idea of Cain and Abel representing these two tribes and then the ancestor of the Jews, the Cain tribe or the Cainites, exterminating the other tribe, has interesting resonances with the genocide we see going on today. And it does remind me that Cain was an agriculturalist, and Abel a shepherd. And so the agriculturalist, Cain, didn't have his sacrifice accepted. I guess it wasn't a bloody enough sacrifice or something. And so that's why he was jealous. And slew his brother. But that notion of one tribe of agriculturalists versus another tribe of pastoralists and then warfare between the tribes and then an extermination is an interesting one to think about, as we're living through this tribal genocide playing out before our eyes in Palestine.

Yeah. And then the other point you mentioned is circumcision. It's true. I feel it's very important to study about this subject because eighth-day circumcision. And some people tell me: “Muslims also circumcize.” But we're talking about eight-day circumcision. We're talking about a newborn babe. I feel it's completely different when you have circumcised boys at the age of…I don't know. In Morocco, what's the standard age for being circumcised?

Around eight years rather than eight days?

Eight years, okay. It's completely different. It raises questions or problems, but they're of a different order because eight-day boy has a capacity to symbolize, to try to make sense. The whole context is different. In my view, it's a little bit like an initiation ritual. Maybe that's not the Islamic way to look at it, but it has something to do with being initiated into the world of adults. But in the case of newborn babes, it's completely different. I'm not a medical doctor. I read a little bit and I do feel it makes sense to think that it has a very profound effect. Mothers testify that it breaks the mother bond. It does have a deep effect on an unconscious level, even on the mother. We talk sometimes of the Jewish mother, the strange relationship between Jewish mothers and their sons, right? There's something not completely…there's some problem in that relationship. And it's connected to circumcision, I believe, because when you read testimonies of mothers who struggled when hearing their son scream when being circumcised, you understand there's also some deep guilt within the mother. I'm not qualified to (analyze it comprehensively) but I feel, anyway, legally, from the legal point of view, it must be banned. And there is a strong argument that when it is banned, the Jewish question will be solved. It's really a big part of the problem. I think lawyers should… I hope some people are fighting on that legal level to get it banned. It's completely unacceptable from a legal standpoint to mutilate young babies. It's completely unacceptable. And the reason why it cannot be banned is that because Jewish rabbis know that if Jews stop circumcising their sons, they will stop being Jews, basically, very quickly. They will stop being part of the tribe.

It's an incredibly strong…it's in the genitals, it's on your physical body, it's a deep mark in your soul. So I think that's an interesting point that maybe is not discussed enough.

I think there have been a few countries in Europe that tried to ban circumcision.

Iceland tried, I think, in 2014. The small nation of Iceland wanted to pass a law. I think the law passed to forbid it. And then, of course, the whole Jewish...they found a way to make threats to the country, to the people, and they overturned the law.

At least the Icelanders tried.

And maybe you should quickly go over the reason why eighth-day circumcision is probably vastly more damaging psychologically than eighth-year circumcision would be among Muslims. And then there are other initiation ritual circumcisions that are parallel to Muslims’ among other groups. It's a fairly common thing in sub-Saharan Africa, actually, going back for as long as it's been recorded.

Your article cited a researcher whose name I don’t remember. But the one I know about is Bowlby, B-O-W-L-B-Y. And Bowlby is considered the founder of attachment theory in psychology. And there's a whole school of thought around this where they experimented on monkeys as well as observing human children. And what they discovered... was that when children have a disturbed relationship with their caretaker, usually their mother during the first year of life, they have very profound psychological damage that follows them and is basically ineradicable for the rest of their lives.

The attachment or this bond—a secure attachment, they call it—between the infant and the mother during the very earliest stages of life is absolutely crucial for future development. And so it's pretty obvious that circumcision radically disrupts this mother-child bond and creates what they call insecure attachment, which leads to a long list of very, very negative outcomes throughout life for people who've had that disruption in their past.

Maybe not for everybody, but at least for a strong percentage. Because, you know, we all have trouble. Many of us had troubled childhoods. Many of us had not very good mothers and so on. So many of us are a bit disturbed. But when it's done systematically over a population…I think it creates a trauma, unconscious issues that people are going to have to deal with if they had that happen to them.

As some of the U.S. American non-Jews, including myself, did have that happen. I was circumcised when I was a baby. And I think at that time it was done to maybe 80 or 90 percent of the population. And now it's down to maybe 50 percent. But in any case, the point is that the science of psychology would argue that this kind of trauma at that very early age is really, really bad—much, much worse than at a later age. And often the Jewish apologists...say, “oh, if something happens to a baby, they don't remember it because we can't remember what happened to us when we were eight days old. Therefore, they're going to just forget it. They're not really human yet.” They come up with all this kind of stuff. Again, the psychology has shown that that's not true. You need to read Bowlby for the full story.

Yeah, the attachment theory. I mean, it's just common sense, you know.

Don't torture babies. That's common sense. Unfortunately, that's what they've been doing in Gaza. They're going after the mothers and the babies. And maybe their hatred of mothers and babies has something to do with circumcision. But we're at the end of the show, so we can't speculate further. We're just going to have to say thank you, Dr. Laurent Guyenot. Always good talking with you.

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: I am debanked here at Substack so I need my Substack subscribers to support my work here by making a recurring donation at Paypal or better yet SPdonate. Note that if you use the free speech payment processor SPdonate you may need to make a larger annual recurring donation rather than a smaller monthly one. $20 is their minimum for any kind of donation. So…thank you to the patrons who are making this work possible! -KB

Alan Sabrosky USMC, “most censored man in America,” returns for his “first Friday of the month” commentary. Trump’s chaotic first month in general, and his ultra-Zionist lunacy in particular, are on the agenda.

Dr. Alan Sabrosky is the former Head of Strategic Studies at the US Army War College. He expresses his Jewish heritage via cuisine, not foreign policy.

Transcript begins:

Welcome to the live edition of Truth Jihad Radio. I'm Kevin Barrett doing this show every Friday, bringing on interesting folks with a lot to say, some of them kind of notorious, greatly-admired and in-some-quarters-reviled people bringing up provocative ideas that they don't want you to hear. Tonight we have two classic guests here reappearing on the show. In the second hour, Laurent Guyenot, the author of From Yahweh to Zion, comes on to discuss his two recently published articles, “The Disraeli Enigma” and “The Cursed Nation and the Temple of Satan.” In the latter article, he addresses the issue of whether eighth-day circumcision is a major factor in making Jews crazy and genocidal. So that'll be a transgressive hour.

And then in the first hour, more transgression with Alan Sabrosky, who expresses his Jewish heritage through cuisine, not foreign policy, is coming back on the show for his usual first Friday of the month gig. He wants to talk about ongoing scandalous issues around Trump's chaotic first month in office. And in particular, the Zionist craziness, the ultra Zionist craziness, this madness of Zion, genocidal madness: “slaughter the children and build a Riviera on their bones.” Chances of that happening are somewhere between slim and none. Hey, Alan! You're looking good. How are you doing?

Not so well in some ways, but I'll talk about that later.

Sorry to hear that. Actually, I've got some issues going here, too, but I probably won't talk about that later. I'll talk about the world issues…It is a little discouraging to lose almost $8,000 to Stripe, canceling 80% of my income and then stealing the $8,000 that they owe me, $7,800, whatever it was. And so that totally demonetized the Substack, which is my main job.

Wow, I didn't know that. I didn't know that would happen.

Yeah, I think it's kind of a compliment, because not that many people have actually gotten debanked at Substack by way of Stripe. So I guess I could take that as a badge of honor. But it's also a pain.

You said that to me after one of our programs, six, seven years ago, where we were talking, and I mentioned the H word, and suddenly my mic was cut off.

Yeah, it's funny how that happened.

You said something to me about, “you should take that as a compliment.” I thought, it's not exactly a compliment to realize that you're gone, you know. But that happens.

You're back.

Yeah, we know. And what is so fascinating to me, and I don't mean that in a positive sense, is that these folks are so good at destroying things and people and ruining things and people. And so bad at building good things. It's not a question of build back better, the old slogan that the Biden administration had. They can't build back, period, better or worse. But by God, they can tear down.

Well, that's what Trump has in mind. Trump lets the Israelis do the genocidal demolition, and then the Americans are going to come in and build the new Riviera. Where does this guy come up with this stuff? Is he smoking something, or is Bibi somehow ventriloquating him?

That's a very good question. Two things about Trump 2.0 are very interesting. And they both bear on your comment. One is that Trump 2.0 is making a serious effort to avoid the fatal error he made in his first term of not getting control of the interior ministries of the government—the Justice Department, FBI. Whether I like him or dislike him doesn't matter. He is doing his best to get control of the government. And it's one of the oddities that has struck me about the American system: It used to be even as recently as 35, 40 years ago, that most confirmations of political appointees or of three and four star generals or force commanders or heads of the services were pretty much pro forma. About the only one that people paid real attention to, and that was often very controversial, was appointments to the Supreme Court.

But now we're in a position, unlike under a parliamentary system, where a president is elected or selected, whichever you choose, because of a certain platform that that president puts out. And then our system allows the opposition party to grind that president's nominees, political appointments, —which are needed to carry out the agenda, the platform—to grind them into dust, to ruin them, or simply to delay them beyond all possible measure. And it makes no sense. It's like having a tramp steamer supposedly doing a cruise liner's job…

Full transcript available at my Substack.

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

Rumble link Bitchute link

Globalization Studies professor (emeritus) Anthony Hall of the Looking Out at the World From Canada Substack explores a range of viewpoints on Trump's threats to invade and annex Canada, and provides historical context.

Transcript selection:

Welcome to the Truth Jihad podcast. I'm Kevin Barrett doing this in audio since 2006 bringing you thoughts from folks around the world who are thinking outside the proverbial box, but a little bit better than Trump is with his lunatic real estate schemes. So I'm back right now with an old friend and colleague, Dr. Anthony Hall. Welcome, Tony. How's looking out at the world from Canada?

Oh, it's a really cold and snowy today. It's a classic Canadian winter day here in Southern Alberta, where I can see the mountains of Montana off on the horizon.

Sounds beautiful. It was a cold day by Morocco standards today, but not cold enough to keep me from running on the beach and swimming in the Mediterranean. But don't be too jealous. You've got a great country, and maybe you can fight off Trump and keep it.

So Trump is saying he wants to invade Greenland and Canada and genocide Gaza. He wants to own the genocide instead of making Bibi own the genocide. Is this man insane? Does Canada have to worry?

Well, Trump has been talking about Canada as the 51st state. And that gets us thinking. That's a pretty radical thing to say.

It's a big state.

And what about having 10 states? Or what about one province joining and the others not? There's all kinds of possible combinations here. I'm now on the third article I've written about it. I find that some thoughtful people in Canada are saying we should join the United States and would like to join the United States and make some compelling arguments.

If we did join the United States, my suggestion for Netanyahu and Trump would be that Trump make Israel, the area controlled by Israel, the 52nd state and annex the whole thing like he wants to do with Canada or is thinking of doing with Canada, including the Palestinians. They can have the oil and he can make Israel the 52nd state of the USA. All people would be citizens of the United States on an equal basis.

But with this situation in Canada—much of United States is on the land of Canada. In Wisconsin, when you were in Wisconsin, you saw that all the names around you, many of them, were Aboriginal and French. New France was deep into what is now the United States. And Trump seems to have no awareness of the history we share. And that history, of course, is much older than the United States. Canada has a number of incarnations. Canada didn't start in 1867. The name Canada came out in the early 1500s from Jacques Cartier. And sometimes New France was known as Canada. And Canada has been, you know, Upper Canada, Lower Canada, the United Province of the Canada.

My sense is people imagine that the United States is sort of the model and Canada is just a paler United States. And I think a lot of Canadians probably look at that as because people don't know a lot of history. So I started by thinking I would tell some Canadian history to explain some of the phenomena unfolding now.

Like this isn't the first time the United States has shown interest in annexing Canada. There was a plan to invade Canada in the 1930s in the era of Franklin Roosevelt. And it was on the books and taken seriously. The idea was to absorb Canada.

Alaska was created in 1867 as a prelude to ingesting Canada. And now we're seeing a repeat.

Maybe Canada should invade Alaska, get some help from Putin.

Well, for myself, I would like to be allied with Russia rather than NATO. And I think Canada would be a good partner, a good ally of Russia.

Well, there you go. That's a great idea. You guys, together, could definitely take Alaska. But you're going to make Putin line up his submarines with those torpedoes that create 800-foot radioactive tidal waves and get those guys all set up and aimed at the two U.S.-American coastlines. And then it's a done deal. Alaska will drop right into your lap.

Jean Chrétien, a former Canadian Liberal party prime minister, who refused to go into Iraq and join the coalition of the willing in 2003, called Trump's words “unprecedented threats and unacceptable insults.” And that's a pretty serious language coming from a former head of state to a current head of state.

You know, the hard news is, it's about Israel all along. It's Israel first. He doesn't have that much time from here on. And if he wants to do anything like the plan he laid out yesterday, that's what his administration is all about. So why not have Israel as part of the United States?

Well, let me just say, Tony, that Palestine is the capital of the Islamic nation, which is the real nation. This Morocco I'm in, and every other Muslim-majority country, are just imaginary little provinces. The real nation I live in is the Islamic nation, and Palestine is our capital, and we are going to get it back, and the Jews are just going to have to deal with it.

Full transcript available at my Substack.

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

International law professor Francis Boyle passed away last Thursday, January 30. I will miss his pugnacious, fiery outrage at the palpable injustices and absurdities that metastasized during his lifetime and killed the American Republic and whatever ideals it may once have represented.

In 2013 Boyle prosecuted Israel for genocide before the Kuala Lumpur Tribunals. In early 2020 he forcefully argued that COVID-19 was obviously a bioweapon, and participated in webinar I helped organize along with Ron Unz, Meryl Nass, and others. (Boyle, like yours truly, was fingered as a “COVID conspiracy theory super-spreader” by the Zio-NATO front group Atlantic Council.) Then in mid-2022 Boyle appeared on my radio show promoting his book arguing that COVID vaccine mandates violated the Nuremburg Code.

In short, Francis Boyle was on the right side, or the mostly-right side, of several of the biggest issues that most academicians shy away from. And none of those issues were bigger than 9/11. National Medal of Science winner Lynn Margulis said more than once that science ended on September 11, 2001. At the end of this short interview, Boyle says something similar about the rule of law.

May God bless Francis Boyle and shower him with His mercy.

-KB

Transcript from Dec. 26 2018 Interview

Kevin Barrett: Francis Boyle is an international law professor at the University of Illinois. And he's also a great human rights voice. He has been trying to shame the University of Chicago into dissociating itself from Gina Haspel, the torture queen. Let's talk a little bit about why they should do that. Francis, I take it you're not proud to be an alumnus of the same institution as Gina Haspel.

Francis Boyle: Thanks, Kevin. Let me... Straighten the record out. I was not trying to shame the University of Illinois at Chicago because they're shameless. The merger between the University of Illinois at Chicago and John Marshall Law School had to be approved by the American Bar Association, which is the accrediting agency. And last February, the culprits at the University of Illinois in Chicago signed on to become a CIA signature university, which is appalling.

I grew up in Chicago. I remember Mayor Dick Daley put University of Illinois at Chicago there. And, we can criticize Daley all you want, but he came from a working class background and he wanted to have an affordable public education in the city of Chicago for working class kids like he was. Necause at that point in time, all the colleges in Chicago were private and cost a lot of money. So it's done great things for educating the youth of Chicago, working class youth, youth of color, et cetera.

So last February, the administration up there decided to become a CIA signature university, so that the CIA could operate freely on campus and recruit these kids to become CIA assets and agents. It's despicable.

What exactly is a CIA signature university?

They're in cahoots with the CIA. You can have a look at their Web page. They do everything. They give the CIA free access to campus. They can run courses and they can come in and recruit students as agents and assets. They're thoroughly penetrated now by the CIA.

Just to clarify, is this a program that other universities have as well, an official program called being a CIA signature university?

That's correct. And the University of Illinois at Chicago administrators there who should be fired did this knowing full well that bloody Gina Haspel was the acting director and going to be the director of the CIA. And that was all over the news media and it made no difference to them. So, you know, this is completely unethical and reprehensible. Well, there was nothing I could do about that, but the University of Illinois and Chicago wanted to acquire John Marshall law school, which is in downtown Chicago. I know John Marshall quite well. My dad was a lawyer and put me to work downtown there at the age of nine at the clerk at his law firm. And actually, I always had a high opinion of John Marshall. And indeed, the last time the University of Illinois at Chicago and John Marshall talked about a merger, I was asked by two different people up there if I would be willing to transfer my tenure to John Marshall Law School as part of the University of Illinois, which I agreed to do because they have a public interest orientation. And they are also there, again, to provide legal education to poor minorities, et cetera. Basically, anyone who wants to become a lawyer can go there and see if they can make it. So I did.

And what happened this time is the University of Illinois at Chicago, a CIA signature university, then is going to give the CIA and bloody Gina Haspel their own law school. So when I found that out, I launched a campaign to convince the American Bar Association not to approve the the merger, which they had to approve.

And the ABA…I've been a member there since 1977, when I was first licensed to practice law. And their motto is American Bar Association, defending liberty, pursuing justice. So I sent numerous communications up there, other law professors and lawyers did too, about all the terrible atrocities the CIA committed around the world. And at that time, we were also getting all this publicity about everything bloody Gina Haspel was up to. And I just found out earlier this week that the ABA had approved this merger. So, fine. Now the American Bar Association owns bloody Gina Haspel and the CIA and all their atrocities. And as I said in my communication to them that I sent you, all their crimes now are going to be on your souls for the rest of eternity. And so be it. But it's an absolute disgrace.

And I am a native Chicagoan, too. So I'm a lawyer. I'm an ABA member. I'm a law professor, part of the University of Illinois system, but down here in Champaign, not in Chicago. And so the CIA will get their tentacles into an accredited law school. And I can assure you all the terribly destructive, evil things the CIA will do to a law school once they get their tentacles in there. We had a previous dean of this law school, Hurricane Heidi Heard, and her consort, Mikey Moore, and Moore publicly admitted he worked for the CIA and the Mossad. And they did terrible, destructive damage to this law school that is still going on today, including torture-mongering, drone strikes, publicly advocating them…one scandal after another.

So I'm very sorry that this is going to happen to John Marshall Law School. My dad did not go to an elite law school like I did (Harvard). He went to Loyola Law School, but a lot of his friends were from Loyola Law School, DePaul Law School, John Marshall Law School. And so I knew some of these people. And this is a disgrace. I did what I could. But there it is.

Well, it's ironic, isn't it? The CIA is well known for flaunting the rule of law. It's barred from by its charter from operating domestically. And yet it operates domestically on a pretty massive scale.

It's not flaunting. It's perverting the rule of law and the United States Constitution. And you are correct here. They operate here in the United States, too. I gave all these facts to the lawyers at the American Bar Association and on their legal education committee and staff. As of now, I'm still the senior law professor at the University of Illinois System. And they had all the facts and they did it anyway.

William Blum just passed away. He was one of the great scholars of the misdeeds of the CIA. His book, Killing Hope, talked about the American Holocaust. He didn't estimate how many millions of people were murdered by CIA and military interventions since World War II. But Chomsky and Volchek estimate that's about 55 to 60 million people. So these are pretty off the scale kind of crimes. And it's interesting to me that there aren't more people in the legal profession who are concerned about this the way you are.

It just shows you the perversion of the legal profession after September 11, 2001, with so many lawyers and law professors buying into the bogus war on terrorism, as the American Bar Association just did in licensing the CIA signature university to get their own law school. And they're going to turn out lawyers, large numbers of lawyers, justifying war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, drone strikes, et cetera, and becoming war criminals in their own right. So that's really what's at stake here.

Indeed. And before I let you go, do you have any comments on the efforts of the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Justice? They've got a grand jury petition filed in the Southern District of New York, and they just got an indication that a grand jury will be seated. The government or the court says it will follow the law, presumably meaning it will seat a grand jury to investigate the possible controlled demolition of the World Trade Center skyscrapers. Have you been following that?

I read about it. Yeah, I think that's a major step forward. nIf you read Senator Graham's 28 pages, it's clear the so-called hijackers were cooperating under the management of the FBI. So maybe a grand jury will get to the bottom of this. So I think that is a major issue. But I'm sure you know, Kevin, there'll be all sorts of attempts made to sabotage this all up and down. But I commend the lawyers that have gotten this far.

It occurs to me if we accept the official nonsense about 9/11, the whole concept of the rule of law starts to seem like a joke.

The whole concept of the rule of law has been a joke since 9/11/2001 anyway, because you've just seen so many lawyers and law professors and law schools buy into the paradigm of this completely bogus war against terrorism, which is really an attempt by the United States to use this as a pretext and excuse to go out and steal as much oil and gas as they can from the Muslim world.

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