Truth Jihad Radio

Rumble link Bitchute link

Gordon Duff, editor of The Intel Drop, discusses “THE IMPACT OF THE RHEINLAND LIE – FILLING ROMAN GERMANY WITH IMAGINARY JEWS.”

Excerpt:

Gordon Duff: I'm sitting at 7,200 references right now at 435 pages..

Kevin Barrett: What do you mean you're sitting on it? Are you sitting on a book you're writing?

Yeah, I'm sitting on a book I'm writing. 35 pages that, if it would go anywhere, would change everything. But it isn't so much attacking the Jews. It's really turned into something quite different. It simply explains who people are. And if you're doing this stuff, if you're doing academic work, which you and I are both trained to do, you kind of have to put the biases aside and let things go where they're going and run with the material and not push everything into the box you wanted to go in.

Yeah, sometimes you actually learn something while you're doing research.

Yeah, and what we've managed to do is utterly disassemble all things European history. That's all totally fake. And anything that said that Jews lived in Europe before the 10th century is fake. You know, there weren't any. There weren't Jews before the 10th century. This is a tough one. This is the kind of rules you have to live with. People of the Jewish faith or the Judean Hebrew faith or the Judeo-Samaritan Hebrew faith, which if you're being more accurate, before the 18th century cannot be called Jews because there was no such word.

No, no, wait, let me stop you for a second, Gordon. So you say there's no such thing as the word Jew, but in other languages, like, for instance, in French, it's a juif, juden in Germany, all that. So none of those words existed?

No, no, no. You're going a little further here. You're picking up 19th century references, not the original list from the French. And a juden is a Judean. There is no, there is, now this is a listen carefully moment for you, Kevin. We did a study, a linguistic study here, and I have a linguistic study, comes out about 45 pages on this. It has over 400 references. And here's what was decided. There are absolutely zero references, zero evidence that any of the Middle Ages terms for Judeans actually linguistically morphed into the word Jew. It never happened. The French term, the German term are not the root for the term Jew. “Jew” was a fabrication that came with Zionism. It is not related in any way linguistically whatsoever. to the word Judean, Hebrew, or anything tied to the Middle East at all.

How about Yehud? In Arabic, it's Yehud or Yehudi.

There is no evidence that Yehud in Arabic in any way is related to the term Jew, J-E-W. No linguistic evidence of any relationship other than the letter J because Judea exists. It's Judea.

But what's in a name? A Jew by any other name would smell as…kosher.

(Read the full transcript 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

Press TV’s Yemen correspondent Yusef Al-Hamoudi and I discussed Yemen’s successful hit on Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv. The strike, which “Israel” is denying, came a few hours ago as retaliation for “Israel”’s terrorist attack yesterday on Sanaa International Airport.

Excerpts:

Yusef Al-Hamoudi: Demonstrations have been held here in Yemen, in the north province of Sa'dah. These were the early morning protests and the big protest, the million man march is expected to take place in less than two hours from now here in the Yemeni capital Sana'a. Now, it is likely that Israel will strike during the protests, just like yesterday when they conducted THE ATTACK ON SANAA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WAS ACTUALLY DURING THE SPEECH OF SAYYED ABDAL MALIK BADRAD DIN, THE ANSARULLAH LEADER, AND THEY WANTED TO SEND A MESSAGE THAT WHENEVER THESE EVENTS UNFOLD, THEY WANT TO REMIND THE YEMENI PEOPLE THAT THERE ARE ISRAELI FIGHTER JETS THAT ARE FLYING OVER THE SKIES OF SANAA. BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO DETER THE YEMENI PEOPLE FROM TAKEN TO THE STREETS EVERY SINGLE FRIDAY. THESE PROTESTS HAVE BEEN HELD EVERY SINGLE FRIDAY SINCE OCTOBER 7. AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO TAKE TO THE STREETS REGARDLESS. EVEN IF THEY KNEW AN ISRAELI AIR STRIKE WAS GOING TO TARGET THEM AT THE 70 SQUARE, IT WILL STILL NOT DETER THEM FROM TAKEN TO THE STREETS BECAUSE OF THE HIGH LIKELIHOOD OF THESE PROTESTS BEING TARGETED. BUT THE MAIN MISSION GOING FORWARD IS GOING TO BE THE MILITARY ESCALATIONS FROM YEMEN'S END.

We have confirmation that the Yemeni armed forces will continue to launch the hypersonic missiles, the drones, the cruise missiles. They will continue to impose the blockade. Look, the attack that occurred hours ago, this was an attack against Israeli interests, against the Israeli airport, and also against Israeli-linked ship in the Arabian Sea.

Kevin Barrett:

And so when you're being targeted with that kind of over-the-top terrorism, sometimes you have to respond in kind. And so Yemen's measured response with its hypersonic strike on Ben Gurion Airport is absolutely necessary. And I think the resistance axis and its supporters in the region, which is, of course, the majority of the population of the region is on board with the resistance in this genocide, needs to step up and act more boldly and forthrightly. And Yemen is leading the way.

The only time the Zionists ever back off is when they're forced to back off. And I would imagine that at some point they're going to be forced to back off from this entire genocidal war that they're waging because they initially said that they were going to defeat Hamas in a month or two. And now it's been a year, almost a year and a half, and they're getting nowhere. All they can do is massacre tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of civilians. They claim that they could defeat Lebanon and steal all the land up to the Latani River. And they lost. They were forced to back out. And now they're in this tit-for-tat war with Yemen. And once again, they're going to fail. And that might be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back. and imposes the reality on the people of occupied Palestine that this insane extremist like Kudnik Netanyahu government surrounded by genocidal maniacs like Smotrich and Ben-Gavir has utterly and completely failed. They not only failed to protect their own people from the heroic raid on October 7th of 2023, but they also have failed to defeat any military forces that they're opposed to.

All they can do is commit terrorism And at some point the Jewish people of occupied Palestine, who have acquiesced to this genocide and will forever bear the consequences of that stigma are going to wake up and notice that their government has completely failed and lost the war, and they're going to get rid of this government, and Netanyahu is going to spend the rest of his life in prison.

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

Rumble link Bitchute link FFWN link

By Kevin Barrett, for American Free Press

“Israel is a cancer on the Middle East.” Resistance leaders across the region have used that metaphor for generations. The Zionists who dominate American politics, finance and media have attacked it as inappropriate.

But is the metaphor inaccurate? Cancer occurs when a diseased cell or cells begin uncontrollably expanding at the expense of neighboring cells and organ systems. Israel, a malignant body of extremist fanatics implanted into the heart of the Middle East, keeps mindlessly and voraciously expanding, not unlike a virulent tumor. Such pathological Zionist growth has caused untold pain, suffering, and hardship for the people of Palestine, the region, and the world.

Let’s chart Israel’s malignant growth. The original version of modern Israel, as set forth in the Balfour Declaration (1917) consisted of a mere “Jewish homeland” (not a state) guaranteed not to impinge on the rights of non-Jews—who constituted the vast majority of the population and owned virtually all of the land of historic Palestine. After the invading Jewish terrorists began running amok, as recounted in Thomas Suarez’s magisterial State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel, Britain rewarded them with the 1937 Peel Commission partition plan, which would have created Israel on 33% of Palestine, leaving the other 67% for Palestinians.

The Peel Commission plan was outright theft. Palestinians owned well over 90% of the land of Palestine, yet the Commission wanted to steal almost one-third of their land and hand it to Eastern European Jewish terrorist invaders. But even such grand larceny wasn’t enough for the Zionists. They held out for more, and got it in 1948 by bribing US President Truman with a suitcase containing two million dollars in cash (as recounted by John F. Kennedy to Gore Vidal). That bribe, and others like it, produced the UN’s partition plan, which almost doubled the size of the Peel Commission’s Israel.

But even that outrageous robbery did not satisfy the Zionist terrorists, who immediately began massacring Palestinians and invading territory outside their UN borders. When the Nakba (Palestinian Holocaust) was over, untold thousands of Palestinians were dead, and more than 750,000 survivors had been robbed of their land and property and forced into exile as permanent refugees. After perpetrating the 1948 holocaust the Zionists refused to return to their UN-approved borders, which would have given them more than 55% of Palestine, and instead continued occupying almost 80%.

But even that didn’t satisfy them. The Zionist leadership spent the next two decades plotting what would become the 1967 war of aggression, in which they stole another 77,000 square kilometers consisting of the West Bank including Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula. Together, those stolen territories are almost four times the size of pre-1967 Israel.

After 1967, Zionist leaders split between those willing to return stolen territory in return for peace, and those dedicated to endless wars of expansion. With the assassination of the land-for-peace Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, the issue was definitively settled in favor of the “forever wars” party.

Rabin was an anomaly—a mere speed bump on the road to Greater Israel. The Zionist leadership has always tacitly agreed that Israel will keep expanding to its Biblical mandate and beyond. David Ben-Gurion defined Zionism’s goal as follows: “to create a Jewish state in the whole of the Land of Israel.” That “whole” includes Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and part of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, northern Arabia, and arguably Turkey. Such conquests will require genocidal war against those countries and peoples.

2024 will go down in history as the year the Zionist cancer metastasized, sending its toxic tendrils even further into northern Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon, and Syria. Netanyahu’s minister Smotrich is calling for the full annexation of the West Bank and Gaza and the murder or expulsion of all Palestinians from historic Palestine. That process is already underway as northern Gaza is being emptied and Israel has grabbed a full 6000 acres of the West Bank. Meanwhile Israel is violating its ceasefire agreement with Lebanon in an attempt to steal all of south Lebanon up to the Litani River. And in the wake of the US-Turkish-Israeli overthrow of the Syrian government, Israel has massively attacked Syria and grabbed vast swathes of Syrian land.

The ever-expanding cancer of Zionism poses a clear and present danger to the region and the world. The driving force behind Zionism is a virulent version of Jewish messianic millenarianism whose endgame is a Jewish military leader conquering not just the region, but the whole world, and then establishing a Jewish global dictatorship based in Occupied Jerusalem.

First they came for the Palestinians. Israel’s neighbors are next. But this isn’t just a regional problem. Metastasizing Israel threatens all of us.

Subscribe to American Free Press (print or digital).

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

Rolf Lindgren joins from Madison, Wisconsin to discuss the recent school shooting. Rolf is a Republican Party events organizer who is well-connected among the conservative minority in Madison that sends their kids to Abundant Life Christian School. We also argue about whether Trump Regime 2.0 will be significantly better than the 2016-2020 iteration that armed Ukraine to the teeth with NATO weapons, attacked China and Iran with COVID-19 sparking a global pandemic, risked World War 3 by murdering the hero Gen. Soleimani, and forced abnormalization on the Middle East setting the stage for the current genocide of Gaza.

Read the full transcript at my Substack page—click above the image to the right.

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: David Skrbina joins at the 29 minute mark.

In the wake of CEO-slayer Luigi Mangione becoming a folk hero, an anti-genocide fighter getting arrested for targeting genocide perpetrators, and less-defensible non-state-sponsored violence reaching epidemic proportions in the USA, it’s a good time to talk about the minuscule fraction of human violence that isn’t perpetrated by governments.

Philosophy professor and technology critic David Skrbina returns to the Truth Jihad podcast to discuss the hoopla around Unabomber Ted Kaczynski’s influence on American young people in general, and CEO-slayer Luigi Mangione in particular. While teaching at the University of Michigan, Skrbina corresponded extensively with the imprisoned Kaczynski and served as his editor. He writes: “This whole issue extends beyond technology to that of any corrupt social system (like health care) and how people might respond.”

Excerpt from the interview:

David Skrbina: Again, that's, again, an interesting parallel between Luigi and Ted, right? They were both combating a larger system, of which they are a very small part. And so there's this perennial dilemma of a large organizational structure which is unjust or illegal or needs to be reformed or changed or overthrown. How does an individual or a small group of individuals have any effect on this process? With an organizational structure that contains hundreds or thousands of people, (violence) doesn't really do any good. Even if you kill one or two of them, the system will just work around it and will replace them and it will move on. So so all you can do is gain attention, gain the notoriety, maybe use that to get a message out, maybe to send a message right to others that that extreme action is being taken by by individual people out there.

So, in Ted's case, he was willing to take extreme action and he was willing to send a detailed message in terms of the manifesto. We can only guess in Mangione's case that he's maybe willing trying to send a message like like these CEOs cannot act with impunity and that they will somehow pay a price for extremely unjust action. I guess we can assume that that's really what Luigi had in mind. It's hard to know unless we hear from him directly.

Read the full transcript at my Substack by clicking on the “transcript” button above the image to the right.

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

Bestselling author James Perloff discusses “Donald Trump and Orwell’s Doublethink.” Perloff, a noted expert on the New World Order, voted for Trump but has very low expectations, especially after seeing his appointments. Unlike folks drunk on Trump kool-aid, Perloff is skeptical of claims that the president-elect is a pro-nationalism patriot who opposes the NWO:

“I have been studying the New World Order since 1978 and writing about it professionally since 1986. I have seen it continually advance and consolidate its power. Nothing is impossible, but four coming years of ‘peace and prosperity’? I doubt it.”

Bottom line:

“The World Economic Forum’s entire agenda could materialize under Donald Trump without many patriots even realizing it.”

Transcript begins:

I'm Kevin Barrett, broadcasting on and off various alternative networks since 2006. And now it's been many years I've been right here at revolution.radio, the finest in free speech alternative networks. Please support revolution.radio. And if you can find a way to support me before I get completely debanked, that would be great.

Stripe debanked my Substack, which was most of what I had coming in. They probably did that because, well, I guess I must be doing something right. So anyway, I guess I'll get to doing something right here by bringing on James Perloff for the second hour of tonight's broadcast.

James Perloff is a best-selling author and a New World Order expert. His new piece on Trump, Donald Trump and Orwell's Doublethink struck me as apropos, because so many people who are totally opposed to the so-called New World Order and the leadership of this godforsaken society seem to think that Trump is somehow a real alternative. Well, we're alternatives, James and I, but I don't know if Trump is. So let's talk about it. Hey, welcome, James. How are you doing?

I'm doing good, Kevin. Thank you for having me on.

Your piece on Trump and Orwell is great. I gave up on Trump a while back. But when I saw that fake shooting on July 13th, that was the last straw for me. That was just so over the top. Did you get a chance to look into that?

I had a lot of different theories that it was a real shooting or that it missed or that it was a warning to Trump or that he staged the whole thing. I know Ole Domogard believes it was completely staged. I don't have a firm opinion, but there were a lot of anomalies, like the fact that the shooting had been pointed out to Secret Service and security, and they did nothing about it. And then that iconic picture of Trump raising his fist, they just happened to catch the American flag in the background.

The Secret Service never should have let him stand up and shake his fist like that. Who knows how many people are shooting at him, right? I mean, that's ridiculous. That's the dog that didn't bark. It's like Bush in the school during 9/11. I assume a lot of my audience already is aware of how Bush was left in a known location on 9/11. Supposedly there was a surprise attack, crashing jetliners from the air. Bush was left in that pre-announced known location. He could have easily been targeted from the air. He was he was left there for almost an hour reading about pet goats with schoolchildren and shaking everybody's hand and smiling. And they took a nice leisurely drive back to Air Force One. He didn't get off the ground for almost an hour after everybody knew that America was under attack. That's the dog that didn't bark. The Secret Service had to have known that Bush wasn't really being threatened. There wasn't any real surprise attack on 9/11.

And the same is true with Trump getting up and shaking his fist after he's been shot at and supposedly hit. I mean, give me a break. Obviously he wasn't hit. There's not one shred of evidence that his ear was even nicked or scratched. He used a blood capsule or maybe the Secret Service scraped it or something with a knife. I think it was a blood capsule personally.

A blood what?

A blood capsule. That's what professional wrestlers use to make it look like they're bleeding.

Oh, okay. That's a good point. I hadn't heard that before.

Yeah, I'll send you some links of the people who've actually looked into this. But anyway, yeah, so I think you're very, very right to be a Trump skeptic. And so where do you even start with the reasons for Trump skepticism?

Well, my article talks about Orwell's doublethink...it included an extensive quotation of Pastor Chuck Baldwin, who listed out promises that Trump broke during his first administration. And I added to that. Just to mention some of them: investigating Hillary, promising to drain the swamp, promising to reduce deficit spending, saying that children received all these vaccinations and saying that it was linked to autism, but then when the president's saying that children have to get their shots, promising to get America out of their Middle East wars but actually dropping four times more bombs than Barack Obama and five times more bombs than George W. Bush on the Middle East.

I know he didn't start a new war in the Middle East, but he did say he was going to win the war in Afghanistan, and he sent additional troops there. Of course, he did not win the war.

He said he would release documents relevant to 9/11. He didn't do that. He said that he would rebuild America's infrastructure. No major bills for America's infrastructure were passed during his administration. Our bridges and roads are still falling apart. He said when he was running for president — this is his first run for president — he said that he loved Julian Assange and called WikiLeaks amazing. But when he was president, he said, quote, "I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It's not my thing."

And then he said he'd be the greatest post-Second Amendment president ever. Yet as president, he signed the bump stock ban. He said, quote, "take the guns first and go through the process second." And he approved what they call red flag laws, which means you arrest, take somebody's guns away based on suspicion that they might commit a crime, even if they haven't committed one.

Of course, he put through Operation Warp Speed, which as Pastor Chuck Baldwin pointed out, Hillary Clinton had never gotten away with closing down American churches. but Trump can get away with it because he's perceived as a conservative.

And appointing John Bolton as a national security advisor. Give me a break. The biggest war hawk for the Bush administration, and he's supposed to be draining the swamp, right?

But what I really want to concentrate on today, because we only have about an hour, is first I want to look at what he did for Israel during his first administration....

(Full transcript available at the top of this article on 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 Note: Kevin has been canceled by Stripe—workarounds are Spotfund and Paypal.

In this week’s False Flag Weekly News, State Department whistleblower J. Michael Springmann and I wondered why Mohamed al-Jawlani, who used to be a “bad terrorist” when he worked for ISIS and al-Qaeda, has suddenly become a “good terrorist” now that he’s changed his name to al-Jewlani, excuse me, al-Julani, and taken over Syria on behalf of the Turks, the CIA, and the Zionists (not necessarily in that order). It’s like an ongoing good-news-bad-news joke: The bad news is that al-Julani used to be Deputy-Headchopper-in-Chief of ISIS. The good news is that he resigned. The bad news is that he joined al-Qaeda. The good news is that he resigned from al-Qaeda too. The bad news is that he started his own terrorist group, HTS. The good news is that HTS is a branch of the CIA and is now in charge of Syria.

The whole notion of “good terrorist,” explored by Doris Lessing in one of her lesser novels, raises interesting questions, including: What exactly is terrorism, and when is it good? That question has been on people’s minds since (alleged) homegrown American terrorist Luigi Mangione (allegedly) shot United Health Care CEO Brian Thompson. Most of the internet seems to think Luigi is a good terrorist, or at least a good-looking one. Amir of the HRmachine1949 Substack has nominated Luigi for Person of the Year.

But wait a minute—weren’t Americans successfully brainwashed against “terrorism” on September 11, 2001? Don’t we all agree that political violence against civilians is morally wrong?

Apparently we don’t.

In a desperate attempt to figure out why we have become so evil, I turned to a non-member of the human species, namely Muse the Cat, to get an outsider’s perspective.

Interview With Muse the Cat

So Muse, I understand you are going to argue in favor of terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Don’t you realize you can’t do that?

B******t. I’m a freaking cat. I can say anything I want.

I envy you your free speech.

Comes with the territory. Nobody deplatforms cats.

Can’t debank you either, I guess. So Muse, give us the rundown on why terrorism and nuclear proliferation are so wonderful.

Sure thing. So let’s start with terrorism. There are two definitions of terrorism, the official one and the unofficial one. The official definition is “political violence against civilians intended to incite fear and terror.” But that’s what governments do—especially the US and Israeli governments. Yet the media never calls it terrorism. So to understand how the word is actually used, we have to turn to the unofficial definition: “political violence that the Establishment doesn’t like.” Frankly, I think we could use a whole lot more of that.

I agree that the current Establishment is evil. But violence isn’t the solution.

Isn’t it? Why not? Think about it from a cat’s perspective. For us, the world is divided into three kinds of critters: the ones cats eat, the ones that eat cats, and cats. (Humans are considered big, powerful cats.) And within the world of cats, there are strong cats and there are weak cats. There are cats that have a really lucrative territory, like me, thanks to all those fresh Moroccan sardines you feed me, and others that aren’t so lucky.

The whole web of life is like that. There are stronger critters, and there are weaker critters. The strong periodically attack the weak to eat them or to steal their territory and resources.

So how can you stop a stronger critter from doing that to you? I’ll tell you how: You terrorize them! You scare the bejeezus out of them by raising a prospect of violence, and potential harm to themselves, that they are unwilling to accept.

By the way, that’s why I terrorize the neighborhood cats to the point that you guys keep me on a leash. I don’t want any other cats horning in on my sardine action.

You have a well-deserved reputation as the worst feline terrorist in the neighborhood. When I walk you on the leash and the other cats see us coming, they turn tail and run for their lives. In that respect, you are a very BAD cat.

Thank you, I’ll take that as a compliment.

Maybe you’re right that I should be nicer to the local cats. But what if I were a total pacifist? Every time you guys cooked sardines, and that delicious odor wafted through the open windows, the local cats would come running and crowd around the dish, and I’d be lucky to get a couple of scales and a scrap of bone.

And what if the local dogs knew I was a pacifist? What if they were confident that I would never, ever claw their eyes out, no matter what? My nine lives would get used up pretty quick.

That’s why all veterinarians, indeed all sensible people, agree that it’s not just cruel, but completely insane and unnatural, to declaw a cat. I can’t believe they used to do that!

That was back in the Dark Ages, Muse, before humans became civilized.

Civilized?! What do you mean, civilized!? They still cut our balls off!

You know I would never do that to you, Muse.

You were thinking about doing it at one point. And on the very rare occasions that I have been known to spray stinky male-cat-piss inside the house, certain threats have been uttered. Now THAT is terrorism!

But I thought you were saying terrorism is good.

Well, I suppose we can all agree that it does have its place. And then argue about which place. So…let’s move on to the real topic here, which is intra-human disputes. You humans may be civilized enough to have stopped declawing cats. But you’re still declawing people! You let the human predators abuse, exploit, and kill to their hearts’ content. But if one of their victims tries to fight back, you make sure they’ve been declawed! And if they fight back anyway, you crucify them. Civilized, my furry feline rear end!

But…but the rule of law!

There’s no rule of law. Just the rule of claw! The Establishment has huge, lethal claws, and the rest of us are at its mercy.

If you wanted actual rule of law, you’d need everybody to have claws, so the weak could deter predation, and force the strong to discuss things and reason their way to win-win solutions. And that’s where terrorism comes in. It’s a way for the weak to grow and show their claws.

The reason most dogs don’t kill cats is that over time, lots of cats have clawed the eyes out of lots of dogs. Dogs know that sure, they could probably kill that cat, but they might lose an eye.

Likewise, if the Establishment saw enough of its CEOs and politicians and bankers and military and intelligence and judicial and law enforcement leaders getting shot down by hundreds or thousands of Luigis, it would have to think twice before abusing ordinary folks.

And if weaker nations had the claws to scratch the eyes out of any predatory stronger nation that attacked them, the strong would be forced to take the route of diplomacy and international law, and humanity might finally become civilized. And that’s where nuclear proliferation comes in.

It’s a tragedy that the Palestinian Resistance hasn’t yet developed the capability to threaten Israel with nuclear weapons or their equivalent. Getting deliverable WMD into the hands of the Resistance ought to be the first task of every decent human being.

What’s more, Alexander Cockburn was right: Every sovereign nation ought to be issued a full nuclear second-strike deterrent capability along with its flag and its seat at the United Nations. The Chinese are not just cowards, they are EVIL for respecting the NPT and refusing to help Pakistan get that full second-strike capability. Every nation needs and deserves that. We need a Nuclear Pro-Proliferation Treaty (NPPT), and every nation needs to sign it and get those nukes! Someone tell Xi that THAT is the real What Is to Be Done.

But wouldn’t that lead to disaster?

On the contrary. The biggest power in today’s world is an evil empire dedicated to conquering the planet and imposing one-world tyranny. It’s driven by Zionist messianic millenarianism, which is working for a “Jewish messiah,” meaning the Antichrist, to rule the world from Jerusalem. It’s also driven by American exceptionalist messianic liberalism, which wants the Sole Superpower to get ever-more-superpowerful until it rules the world unopposed. And finally, it’s driven by Straussian-Hobbesian technocratic cynicism, which posits that the only hope for world peace is a global surveillance state ruled by Leviathan.

A world under a single center of absolute power would be absolutely corrupt. Those working for it are the planetary equivalent of cancer cells. Like a tumor, they obsessively pursue their own growth at the expense of their neighbors and the larger ecosystem.

In an ecosystem where only a few of the strongest critters have claws, the rest are going to get robbed and eaten. And once they’ve all been robbed and eaten, the ecosystem collapses and everybody dies.

So to save humans and their planetary ecosystem, the weak need to grow claws so they can terrorize the strong into becoming civilized.

Terrorism and nuclear proliferation are the last, best hope for humanity.

Guest post by Muse the Cat

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

Rumble link Bitchute link

Press TV

A disabled young man is the latest victim of the Israeli regime’s deadly incursions into the occupied West Bank. The 23-year-old Mohammed Ahmed Maslameh was shot in Beit Awwa west of the city of al-Khalil. He was brought to hospital with critical gunshot wounds to the chest and succumbed to his injuries shortly after. The Israeli forces also raided the village of Umm Safa northwest of Ramallah. Local officials said the regime soldiers stormed the village shortly after the Friday noon prayers, preventing the movement of residents and searching their vehicles. Since the outbreak of the U.S.-Israeli genocidal war on Gaza last year, Israeli forces have intensified their raids in the West Bank, abducting at least eleven thousand nine hundred Palestinians.

Mr. Barrett, welcome to the program. Let's jump right in and get your perspective on this continued aggression against Palestinians in the West Bank that we've been seeing by the Israeli regime, a nonstop trend ever since the genocide war on Gaza started in October of last year.

Yes, this is not only a ramped up genocide of Gaza, but they're also targeting the rest of Palestine as well. And in fact, the Zionists have made it absolutely clear that they are planning to murder and expel all Palestinians from all of historic Palestine. They've ordered their captive American politicians to stop referring to the West Bank and instead use these biblical genocide names of Judea and Samaria for this region.

And although Smotrich and Ben-Gavir and people like that are the only ones who are saying it completely out loud, the entire Israeli leadership is pretty much singing from the same hymn book, just a little bit quieter. And they've got the incoming American administration on board with this now. Sheldon Adelson's widow, Miriam Adelson, gave Trump $100 million, allegedly in return for Trump's promise to allow the Zionists to ethnically cleanse the West Bank and declare their sovereignty over it.

So the West Bank is being targeted along with the rest of Palestine. And the slow motion genocide and the genocidal violence afflicting the West Bank may not be as spectacular as Gaza—I don't know if any violence in all of human history ever has been quite as spectacular as this absolutely insane bloodshed, these deliberate massacres of civilians and women and children that have been going on in Gaza.

But they're also planning to expel Palestinians from the West Bank as well. And they're planning to steal as much of neighboring countries as they can possibly steal. We just saw them try to steal parts of Syria. They were rebuffed trying to steal parts of Lebanon, but they're not going to give up forever.

The Zionists are completely out of control. This project is genocidal. It's criminal. It's a classic war of aggression against all of its neighbors. And the region, the Muslim Ummah and the Global South, realizes that this whole Zionist project needs to be put out of its misery. And the problem is how to do that. And it's going to be a problem for apparently the coming years at least, if not decades.

And one more issue, Mr. Barrett. I guess one of the matters that is the most perplexing here is how mainstream media has basically swept whatever is taking place in the West Bank under the rug. And it's completely turned a blind eye to all the atrocities and the crimes that the Israelis are carrying out in the occupied West Bank.

Yes. I noticed that, for instance, this report about the killing that we just saw is nowhere to be found in Western mainstream media. I used the search engines. I looked all over for it. It's just not there. Apparently, they don't care.

Any time that an Israeli Jew gets killed, that's front page news. But they've been killing Palestinians throughout all of Palestine. for decades, and it just doesn't get reported. There was a study by ifamericansknew.org quite some time ago that looked at New York Times coverage, the relative coverage of Israeli deaths and Palestinian deaths, and they found that the Zionist settler deaths were given something like almost 100 times as much play in the Western media on the average.

And so there are many reasons for this, but the biggest reason is that people loyal to the Zionists are in the driver's seat in Western media, in Western finance and in Western politics. And the relatively moderate genocidal Zionists, so-called, among the liberal Jews, have been shoved aside by the fanatical extremists who are now taking power in the United States with the incoming Trump administration. And the rest of the Western people have not fully understood what's been done to them, that they've been subjected to a hostile takeover of their civilization by this fanatical messianic millenarian cult dedicated to committing genocide in Palestine and ultimately ruling the world from Palestine.

That's their eschatology. They believe that their so-called messiah is going to be a world dictator, a military leader who conquers all of the non-Jews of the world and creates a global Jewish dictatorship from Jerusalem. That's the religious side of the whole Zionist project. And even though many pro-Zionists may be ostensibly secular and are sort of swept up in it, it's the hardcore millenarian messianic religious extremist Zionists, the ultra genocidal lunatics like Smotrich and Ben Gavir and the whole rabbinical establishment that agrees with them, that is ultimately calling the shots and ultimately providing the impetus for this genocidal Zionist project.

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: Kevin has been canceled by Stripe—workarounds are Spotfund and Paypal.

Market analyst and investor Alex Krainer wonders whether by suddenly giving up Syria without a fight, Iran and Russia may have set a trap for the Zio-American Empire: “This surprised nobody. The (claim) that they came by surprise is just is inconceivable to me. That the Russians signed a truce with duplicitous backstabbing Erdogan and then they completely took their eye off the ball and just thought that ‘we have nothing to worry about there’—that’s inconceivable to me. And so the only explanation that makes sense to me is that this was by design. Also, the way the Syrian army folded, it wasn’t just one place. It was a place after place after place after place. From the top, too. It was coordinated. So they were given orders to pull back, to demobilize, to melt away. And then the question is why?

“The only place you walk into that easily is a trap. And so once you remember, how did the West finally break the Soviet Union? They drew them into Afghanistan. So that was the Soviet Union’s quagmire. It’s actually not rocket science.”

We’ll also discuss Alex’s warning that London may be in the crosshairs for a false flag attack.

Excerpts:

Kevin Barrett: So Alex, should we start with the London webcams? Have they been turned back on? Whatever happened to those?

Alex Krainer: I have no idea whether they've been turned back on. Last I checked was a few days ago, and they were not. They were still black. What happened since then, because it's been about 10 days since I posted my article, I assume that they're still black. I guess I could check, but I'm assuming that they're black.

For me, that's a very suspicious thing because there are several hundred webcams around London. And since I published my article, a handful of people wrote back and they said oh, look, this one's working and this one's working. And in fact, it turned out to be two of them working. Two or three people wrote back that the one on Abbey Road is working, and I checked. It is. And then a couple of them pointed out another one. I forget which one. It's working.

But all the other ones are black. So that's not something that can happen randomly, just by some random error that all of a sudden several hundred webcams go offline or go black all at the same time. And I found it very, very alarming because somebody obviously had to make a decision about that. It's a major European city. What's the reason why the webcams should be off? To me, the likely reason for that is that they are preparing a false flag attack and that they are hiding evidence.

Let's suppose that they are going to detonate a nuclear device above London, or a dirty bomb or some kind of a very big explosion. Maybe they would spend a few months shipping out the artwork, shipping out the gold, whatever valuable things they don't want to be destroyed or don't want to be looted. And they might be shipping in the explosives. And so maybe it's better that no evidence of that remains recorded anywhere.

So that could be the reason. But why would our venerable leaders in the West, our dear leaders, do such a nefarious thing? Well, as we know—and I documented this in my article that I published a few days ago—we've had several among the most prominent Western leaders,among whom General Mark Milley and Boris Johnson and President Morawiecki of Poland, all saying the same thing: that, quote-unquote, "if we lose in Ukraine, it will be the end of Western hegemony. We will lose the world for generations." Statements to that effect, and some of them in those exact words.

So how big are the stakes? The stakes are huge.

And we have seen them desperately trying to somehow engineer consent for war in Europe among the Western public. Because we know that there's no willingness among the Western public to escalate the war, to go collectively to war against Russia, to start another world war on the European continent. And so perhaps consent could be obtained if you had some kind of a very very emotionally charged event, something very spectacular, visible to everyone, happen. And then they could say, oh look at what the Russians have done to us! Now we have to go and kill them!

A mushroom cloud over London would be pretty iconic.

A mushroom cloud over London would be one of those indelible images that would stay with us for all eternity. And if West prevailed in this war by any chance, it would be enshrined in history that Russia dropped a nuclear bomb on London.

And then these recent provocations with storm shadow missiles and the ATACAMs also work to that angle. Because all of a sudden, the Western powers that decided, all of them, the United States included, to authorize Ukraine to launch long range, Western provided missiles to strike deep into Russia. Strategically, that doesn't change anything. It's not going to change the trajectory of the war. It's not going to turn things around for Ukraine. They can inflict some pain on the Russians, blow up a few things, kill a few people, but that's it. They can't win the war.

And Vladimir Putin has made it very plain that we understand that this is not Ukraine attacking us, because it's not Ukraine's weaponry. Ukrainians are not capable of targeting those weapons, of programming their trajectories, of selecting the targets. Ukrainians can provide the real estate and maybe pull the trigger, but everything else has to be prepared and programmed by Western technicians.

So the Russians understand perfectly that this is an attack by Western powers against Russia proper, which is an act of war. So it seems to me that the only reason why they would be doing it since it's exacerbating risks of escalation, but it cannot turn around the trajectory of the war, is to provoke a response from Russia. So that the Russia says okay, so now you, the French, you, the British, you, the Americans, are striking at us. Now we're going to strike back at you. And then, you know, they get to invoke NATO Treaty Article 5. And then you have the confrontation between Russia and the collective West, NATO.

But the Russians are not stupid. They're not buying the provocation. They're not falling for it. And they will not strike at any NATO target outside of Ukraine. So in that case, you have to do it yourself, right?

If we look at the history of warfare over centuries around the world, when the ruling establishment has to mobilize their populations, the whole of society effort to go and kill their adversaries for them, to win their war for them, they routinely organize false flag attacks. When we needed to go to start global war on terror, they somehow orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. I hope this is not news to anybody.

Let's look at Syria then. I would have thought that maybe what happened with Syria was that Russia and the Zio-American empire cut a deal and said, okay, we see Ukraine's going down one way or another. And so the American side sees Trump's coming in, new people there who are willing to get out of Ukraine and stop that war. So to let you do that, you're going to have to give us Syria. And so that would be one explanation for why the Syrian resistance to this so-called liberation from Assad just melted away like nothing.

However, there's another explanation which may be partly compatible, and that is what you offered in a recent video interview in which you suggested that it was a trap, that you can't walk that easily into victory. If you walk in that easily, it's got to be a trap. And you compare this to the Russian bear trap set by Brzezinski when Brzezinski confessed to a French magazine, I think it was Le Point, that he had baited the Russian bear into coming into Afghanistan in order to finish off the USSR. And so maybe the Russians are going to have their revenge by turning the Zionists and the Americans loose on Syria and making it their project and their liability and their responsibility. And maybe that's not going to work out too well for them.

And so I think you may be onto something. In particular, though I don't think you stressed this, what I would add to your analysis is that the Russians may see that the U.S. leadership is dominated by Zionists. And the Zionists are willing to sacrifice American imperial interests and strategies in service to their maniacal, delusional Zionist craziness. And so (the Russians say) “let's let the Americans get hijacked by the Zionists and go insane in Syria and the Middle East. The Americans already lost $8 trillion (on the 9/11 wars for Israel). They lost all their soft power going along with this Zionist 9/11 thing. So let's get them bogged down in the Middle East again, and get them doing irrational things, because they're under total Zionist control. The American empire is going to do crazy self-destructive things now. Let them have Syria.” So, yeah, that actually makes a certain amount of sense.

Netanyahu and his merry gang of Zionists have been absolutely desperate to get the Americans to go and kill Iran for them. And so this is a ploy to do it while Biden is still in power. If Scott Ritter's right, this incursion from Idlib was meant to take place in March of next year, and that they rushed it to take place at the end of November. What induced them to do that? I don't know exactly, but from the information we have so far, there have been extensive discussions between the Arab state on behalf of the Americans with Bashar al-Assad to try to induce him to distance himself from Iran and from Hezbollah in exchange for normalization with the West, for easing of sanctions and for stabilizing Syria's economy. These talks were quite advanced and somehow it was arranged that the information about these talks gets to Erdogan as well. And supposedly this panicked him because he sees a threat in it from the point of view of Americans using the Kurds as a lever against him to destabilize Turkey.

And so to my mind, there are two possibilities. Either he reacted to this or he was in cahoots with the Russians and the Iranians and launched this incursion prematurely with the view of pushing the US, UK, NATO and Israel under the bus. The other possibility is that he did it because he wanted to take chunks of Syria and that he has this undying obsession with recreating the Ottoman Empire and consolidating the greater Turania all the way to Turkestan. Okay, it's plausible, but he would have to be unrealistic, naive, even stupid. Because in this, he's relying on the Western powers. Particularly MI6 has been trying to bait Erdogan to ally himself with Britain and Poland and Ukraine against Russia. And the bait was the great Turania under Turkish leadership, under Erdogan's leadership as his legacy.

And quickly tell us, what is Turania precisely?

If you go from Turkey eastwards all the way to China, you have like a whole belt which is populated by Turkic people. You know, Xinjiang province in China, and then, you know, all the Stans, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and so forth. These are all Turkic people. And this was allegedly offered to Erdogan as his big reward for allying himself with the UK, Poland and Ukraine in this war against Russia in Ukraine. And so this, you know, we know that the MI6 have been very, very busy in Turkey, trying to seduce Turkey into working with them on these Eurasian agendas.

But the US, and probably MI6 also, tried to orchestrate a coup and assassinate Erdogan in 2016. Europe has been stringing along Turkey about their EU membership forever. Turkey has been humiliated by the West repeatedly and treated as a second fiddle. While at the same time, Russia has designated Turkey as the main natural gas hub towards Western markets. They are completing a large nuclear power plant in Turkey as we speak, and they have a program of training up Turkish nuclear engineers.

And remember, Russia saved Erdogan after the US-sponsored coup attempt.

Exactly. The Russians saved Erdogan when they try to assassinate him. And then Russia also financed indirectly, not directly, but indirectly Russia provided money for Turkey during Erdogan's last presidential elections. So they've been helping him extensively for a very long time, while the West has been trying to push Turkey around, regime change it, assassinate Erdogan. They yanked out this F-16 program from Turkey.

So it's been a bad relationship. And then I believe that the West has already been strategically defeated, both in Ukraine and in the Middle East. And so the idea that Erdogan somehow ended up throwing his lot with the defeated side, which has also been dealing in bad faith with him for a long time, is kind of hard for me to believe.

And then, in the aftermath of the Idlib incursion, we see that...It's silence. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese are saying much. The Chinese are not saying anything. The Iranians are not saying much. Business as usual continues. The cooperation continues. The investments continue. The Iranians just announced a large, multi-billion dollar investment in Turkey.

So my bet is that this was a similar type of trap set up for the Western Empire as the CIA and Zbigniew Brzezinski set up for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. And then there's also the wider context that works with this idea, and that is the fact that both Russia and China want to create a completely new security architecture on the Eurasian continent, because the one we have today is the vestige of British geopolitics, Mackinder's idea of surrounding the pivot area with an arc of crises, with all these bridgeheads through which wars would constantly be orchestrated to weaken the pivot powers and to keep them always at war, always dependent on Western aid, finance, trade, weaponry, and so forth. And it was basically the British approach to ruling the continent by divide and conquer. And so that's what we've had. constant wars in this region, this arc of crisis in the south of the pivot area.

The pivot area is the expanse defined by Halford Mackinder as the expanse encompassing Russia, Ukraine, the Caucasus, parts of Iran and Kazakhstan and all the way to Afghanistan. And so for the British Empire, this was the optimal geographic area where they deemed that an alternative empire was going to emerge because it was so very rich in resources and population. And (they feared) that such an empire would be much more powerful than a sea empire like the British Empire was. And so they saw it as existential, particularly after the Russians in introduced the Trans-Siberian Railway, because they deemed that that railway would then catalyze development by providing infrastructure and transport and communications. And that from there, this new, very powerful land-based empire would emerge inaccessible to maritime commerce.

And the Belt and Road is the recent version of that.

Exactly, exactly. That's part of it. That's definitely, that's almost exactly what the Brits knew they feared. And at the time, they were especially worried if Russia and Germany should ally themselves one against the other. They didn't really see China emerging as a potential rival, but by the end of his life, I think in one of his last papers, Mackinder did actually hypothesize that it might actually be China that emerges as a power and then Russia and China together become this alliance that would ultimately shift power from Anglo-American empire to this other emerging pivot power.

Mackinder was talking about the bridgeheads being France, Italy, Egypt, India, Korea. Then we had formation of independent Ukraine, Israel. India was divided into Pakistan and India, the Koreas were divided South and North. We have these flashpoints everywhere and they're almost constantly at war. So this is what the Russians and the Chinese want to pacify, to have a millennium of peace for the future. And it looks like that may be a real possibility.

So even in the wake of this apparent catastrophe in Syria, it seems that the Saudis and the Iranians and even the Turks, who supposedly just did this and clobbered the Iranians and the Russians, actually, they're all maybe somewhat on the same page. Well, let's hope so. And let's hope that they don't blow up London and blow up the world. And if they don't, I'll have you back again before too long and celebrate.

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

Rumble link Bitchute link

I have been debanked by Stripe, so please: Donate through Paypal Donate through Spotfund

Richie Allen, a leading candidate for best host in international talk radio, has returned from his sabbatical refreshed and well-informed. (He must not have been on a news fast!) Below is a transcript of our conversation. -KB

Richie Allen: What can you glean from people locally (in Morocco) in terms of how they view cataclysmic geopolitical events like what we've seen in Syria in the last week or days? ...In light of what happened in the last week or so, the the fleeing of Bashar al-Assad to Russia, the taking of Damascus by a conglomerate of so-called rebels... What's the mood, Kevin, as far as you can ascertain in your own town there in Morocco?

Kevin Barrett: Well, Richie, I think a lot of people in the West don't really understand how people in the MENA region—that's Middle East North Africa region—see these things. And it's a little more complicated than the alternative media narrative versus the mainstream narrative, where the Axis of Resistance, for people like me, is the good guys, right? The folks resisting genocide are the good guys, and that would have included the Assad government in Syria. And all of the other forces tend to be more nefarious.

But basically, people here seem to be both absolutely fed up, appalled, and at their wit's end by this genocide of Gaza, which is the central issue affecting the whole global south. But they're not so much attached to the Axis of Resistance. There's been a certain amount of success, I think, with the propaganda campaign that's been designed to sort of contain Islamic Iran, and convince people in the so-called Sunni Muslim world that Iran and its Axis of Resistance are not all they're cracked up to be.

So for that reason, a lot of people in Morocco, even while they appreciated to some extent the way that Iran and its allies have been trying to stop the genocide—and certainly everybody here has been cheering for the Houthis as they shut down shipping in the Red Sea, and cheering for Hezbollah and mourning the loss of these great resistance leaders. But at the same time, there's a feeling that some of the the Axis of Resistance, particularly the Assad government, is not really capable of taking on the Zionists.

And so there's a propaganda talking point that's out there. I don't really think it's a strong, true talking point, but a lot of people here kind of believe it, which is that we need to get rid of Assad so we can get rid of the Zionists. "Assad didn't really do anything to stop the slow motion genocide of Palestine. He talks a good game, but he and his Iranian friends, they haven't really been very successful. And now that the majority population of Syria is back in the driver's seat, backed by Turkey, which wants to restore the Ottoman Empire, which of course used to run that part of the world with consent and was viewed as legitimate by the people there, that now we actually may be seeing down the line a force that can actually stop Zionism.

And so people here are actually kind of happy about whats happening in Syria. I'm not. I was cheering for the Axis of Resistance. I thought Bashar al-Assad was one of the very few decent human beings in a leadership position. But maybe he was too decent to be a powerful leader.

A number of journalists I've been hearing from in recent days—these would be Western mainstream journalists. So immediately the starting point is you've got to take what they say, with a large dose of salt. But a number of them are reflecting on their knowledge of Bashar al-Assad pre-2011 and shortly after 2011. And the picture one or two of these old hacks are painting is that this guy was a fairly weak guy.

Now, one or two of these journalists have even sounded like they've been inclined to give him a bit of a pass in terms of separating him from the Syrian army. There was always a large body of Syrians, not necessarily backed by the West, by the United States or by Israel, or not necessarily backed by Turkey, but just Syrians who hated Hafez al-Assad, his father, and hated the notion that the Assad dynasty was going to continue when Bashar al-Assad came back from the UK in the mid-noughties to take the throne.

I suppose the point I'm making is, could it be that he didn't really have any control over, or didn't have as much or enough control over his own military? Is that a fair question, and could it be legitimate? I'm thinking in terms of, we all know the Arab Spring and the National Endowment for Democracy, and we all know there was an awful lot of outside interference and stirring up tension in Tunisia, in Egypt, and then Syria. Of course, I know that. But there were always large, large numbers of people who were fed up with the status quo, with that way of living. You kind of get what I'm getting at here, that Assad was kind of lost in the middle of all of that, really, and didn't really have any real power. What do you think of that when you hear that?

Yeah, I think that's true. I think that's why he was targeted. They look for weaknesses, and that situation probably was not really sustainable.

The background is that for the centuries in which Syria was part of the Ottoman Empire, the upper class part of the population, and indeed the majority of the population, were Sunni Muslims. And then you had a whole bunch of other kinds of groups, Christians and Alawites and Shia people and all of these other groups that were marginalized, and tended to be in the mountains and were not as wealthy. So there was kind of a wealthy Sunni bourgeoisie that ruled the country and cooperated with the Ottomans. Then the French invaded after World War One and Ottoman rule was overthrown and the French took over. And the french put the Christians, and to some extent the Alawites and the other religious minorities, in charge, and demoted the the former elite. And that really rankled on those people who were demoted. Later when when the French withdrew, the rulers who were from the minority communities found a new way to legitimize themselves, which was to adopt the Ba'athist ideology of secular socialist Arab nationalism.

And that never really took hold. I think Baathist Arab nationalism and the different varieties of Arab nationalism have never actually become a thing. And people in this part of the world have thought of themselves as a whole lot of things, but "the Arab nation"—it has really been just intellectuals who dreamed that up.

Here in Morocco, hardly anybody really thinks of themselves as Arab. The people who grew up speaking Arabic technically might be called Arabs as opposed to Berbers or Amazirs who speak that language. But nobody thinks of themselves that way.

So how do they?

Well, here people think of themselves as Moroccans or Maghribis, that is the Western Islamic people, and mostly identify as Muslims—not that the Jews and Christians here would be any less Moroccan, but Islam is really the first kind of identification.

And so I think that's kind of what's going on is that the majority population of Syria is part of this group that was basically demoted and overthrown and knocked out of power by the French. And they've been wanting to get back ever since. And the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the groups that represents that and sees it in terms of trying to restore a particular kind of Sunni Islam.

And so those are the forces that are taking over. And is this good for the West and the Israelis? The West and the Israelis have been trying to do this for decades and they finally got it done. I think they're maybe going to rue the day that they did this. In Rise and Kill First, Ronan Bergman, the Israeli Mossad stenographer, talks about how the Israelis have repeatedly neutralized one threat only to create an even bigger threat. They neutralized the secular Palestinian resistance of the PLO, and then they got the religious resistance of Hamas and Hezbollah and the Axis of Resistance. And now that they've screwed that up, guess who's coming to town now? A new resistance. Hamas is totally cheering for this new leadership in Syria, which is, of course, dedicated to liberating Palestine. And it'll have the backing of the vast majority of the world's Muslims who identify as Sunni Muslims. That's like 85 plus percent of the world's Muslim population is gonna be far more engaged with being dedicated to avenging this genocide and liberating Palestine. So I think the Zionists are once again going to rue the day...they think that they won a battle, but it's going to be the biggest Pyrrhic victory in the history of warfare.

And you think Hamas is certainly excited by, is thrilled by this development. I'll tell you—and you know when I speak, I speak for myself and I'm not reflecting on anybody else's thoughts or opinions or anybody else's agenda. I, like yourself, followed the events of Syria and the Arab Spring over the last years. What I can see independently, and I can't verify everything. But videos emerging from Syria, from Damascus and the outskirts of Damascus in recent days, show these guys in the worst possible light, these liberators. I'm talking about the group known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham HTS, which used to be an affiliate of al-Qaeda. Some of the atrocities being committed against Syrian army soldiers and people considered to be loyal to Assad, that I've seen on video in recent days, they're terrible, Kevin. I mean, it effectively looks like this is ISIS, what is happening. Now, have you seen some of these videos? Have you heard about them? And how should we react to them? And why would the Palestinians be happy about that kind of reality, where they're in Damascus now and they're brutally murdering and torturing anybody they can get their hands on who might have been loyal to Assad?

I actually haven't seen videos like that, Richie. Maybe I haven't been paying as close attention as maybe I should be. I haven't seen that, but it wouldn't surprise me if there are some of those kinds of recriminations going on. ّّWhether it's as brutal and widespread as the kinds of abuses committed by ISIS in Iraq, I don't know. I hope not. But I think there are a number of different groups in this so-called rebel coalition that's swept into power. And I doubt very much that they're all equally brutal. And how they stack up to the previous government, I don't know. There's so much propaganda being thrown around. But yeah, it's quite possible that some of these people and possibly the people in Hayat Tahrir Alshem are pretty brutal, crazy and, basically narrow minded. sort of like some of the same types of people that took over in Libya. And so you might end up with Syria as a sort of a failed state like Libya.

And Kevin, if I may just interject there, these were effectively funded, trained and armed by the intelligence agencies of Israel and the US, weren't they? And they were treated in many cases on battlefields. They were treated, patched up and returned to do their killing and torturing and videoing.

Yeah, a lot of these groups — and it's hard to keep track of them and to figure out which people among these kinds of groups are sincere, which ones are mercenaries, which ones are deluded and fanatical, and which ones actually know that they're fighting under a false flag. But it's certainly ironic that ISIS was created by the United States in a United States military prison camp. That's basically on the record. And Al-CIA-duh or Al-Qaeda was also largely created by the United States during the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. And relations between the U.S. empire and its various minions in these groups have been ongoing. So, yeah, this whole narrative is that there are these scary, radical Muslim terrorists who do these terrible things like 9/11 and Charlie Hebdo and so on and so forth. But then when they overthrow governments that we want them to overthrow,like in Libya and Syria, with our help, then they're actually maybe sort of the good guys. But then again, now we have a good excuse to invade and occupy the country because we're scared of these scary, scary terrorists that we paid and we equipped and we sent there. The hypocrisy is off the scale.

You're listening to Kevin Barrett, academic researcher, broadcaster and writer. Go to Kevin Barrett dot Substack dot com. There's more than a few messages coming in with questions and points for you. One of the theories about the events of the last two weeks. One of the theories is that a few weeks ago Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky told the Times of London that he would be open to conceding territory in eastern Ukraine to Russia as a way of finding a solution to ending the war. And then we have a blitzkrieg type storming of Syria and Damascus by these rebels, and it's all over with very little bloodshed, and Assad is in Moscow. So one of the theories, I know you've heard this, is: Do you think a deal was struck between the West and Russia with Putin to say, look, stay out of what's going to happen in Syria now — Iran is occupied with Israel, Hezbollah is occupied with Israel, you're mired in Ukraine. Stay out of this. And your carrot, your reward will be you'll get the territory in Ukraine. What do you think of that?

Yeah, that's right. They basically traded Ukraine for Syria: Russia gets Ukraine and the Americans finally get Syria. But when I say the Americans, of course, what we mean is the Israeli project that was sketched out in the 1996 Clean Break document commissioned by Netanyahu. And that document laid out the plans to preemptively overthrow Arab governments that were seen as problematic for Israel, and thereby open a completely new chapter in the region, to "not just obliterate our problems, but completely transcend them." And that's the plan that was put into effect with the false flag attack on September 11th, which was done by Israel and its American stooges. The purpose was to put the Clean Break plan into action, overthrow seven countries in five years. And of course, Syria was on that list and Iran is the last and the biggest on that list. And they're still working on it.

So I think the Russians decided that sometimes the best way to teach a dog not to chase cars is to let him catch one. And I think the Russians said, look, these Americans are completely captured by the Israeli lobby. They let the Israelis blow up the World Trade Center and murder 3000 Americans and hijack their foreign policy. They caused the Americans to spend $8 trillion on totally counterproductive wars — counterproductive for the American empire, but very, very useful for greater Israel. And so the Russians said, look, these crazy Americans are dominated by lunatic Jewish oligarchs who have hijacked America and are wasting America's substance on behalf of greater Israel. That's harming the American empire. That's going to bring down the American empire. So let's let the Americans go ahead and have Syria, because that's what the Israelis want them to do. And let's let the Americans get bogged down there and get bogged down in all of these wars for Israel. And the Americans are going to continue to make these grossly irrational decisions and act against their own interests because they've been captured by a parasitical foreign entity, the state of Israel. And they're gonna bring their own empire down. And we, the Russians and the Chinese and so on, are going to build the multipolar world successfully because these lunatic Americans have allowed themselves to be driven into the ground by this gigantic parasitical tick that's sucking the blood out of the American empire.

What do you reckon to former U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts? Paul says that guys who believe that the United States is controlled by Tel Aviv or that Washington bows to Tel Aviv are wrong. It's the other way around. It's just meant to look like that. The state of Israel is the neocons' base in the Middle East, and it's the land, it's the state they use to push these plans. The Wesley Clark, as we talked about many times over the years, plans for these seven countries. Paul is adamant and he's no fan of Israel or Zionism. He reckons we've got it all wrong. Not we, because I don't necessarily agree with you or Paul, but he says, look, it's Washington controlling Israel, not the other way around, even though with all the money going into AIPAC, it might look that way... What do you think of what Paul says?

Well, I think he's wrong. Chomsky says the same thing. Caitlin Johnstone is saying the same kinds of things. I don't think they understand that the United States is not one coherent entity that's always going to act in one coherent imperial interest. There are ten United States foreign policies in each location around the world where the United States is trying to get things done. So who makes U.S. Central America policy? Well, maybe it's United Fruit, because the banana imports are the biggest economic interest there. So who makes American Middle East policy? Well, guess what? More than a third of the richest oligarchs in America are Jewish. All of those people, virtually all — if you can name me one anti-Zionist Jewish oligarch that would be great — but basically all of these Jewish oligarchs who, working together, have a lot of power in the United States, are loyal to Israel. And so for the same reason that the only people interested in Central America policy is United Fruit, so they totally run it, the people the most interested who have the money and power to run the policy towards the Middle East — it's the Jewish lobby. And James Petras has proven this in his books, including The Power of Israel in the United States. Walt and Mersheimer too have famously proven this. And the counterargument just doesn't hold water. The oil companies did not want these wars. They were against them. They want stable operations. The business community wants stable operations. They want the Americans to be friends with all the governments in the Middle East and all the people in the Middle East. But what we have now is that the region hates America because of Israel. And the leaders have to kowtow to America and to Israel, and the people hate it. And it creates huge problems for the United States. Ultimately, the United States is going to lose the region and the world because it's been hijacked by this gigantic Zionist leech that's sucking its lifeblood.

Yeah, I mean, there are two camps, right? So there's the everything comes down to the greater Israel project from the Nile to the Euphrates. And that's what it's all been about for a century or two centuries or more. And then there's, as you mentioned, Paul Craig Roberts and Caitlin Johnston and Chomsky and other Jewish intellectuals who just say, no, it's not the tail wagging the dog, it's the dog wagging the tail.

Kevin, thanks for that. It's eight minutes to the top of the hour. Let's talk about Gaza then. Bit of limbo. Now, there isn't limbo. If you're in Gaza, there's no limbo. It's genocide. It's terror. It's unimaginable horror and fear. But at the moment, you've got a guy leaving the White House and you've got a guy preparing to move in. The guy preparing to move in, I will concede — I don't need to concede anything, it's obvious — is 100% owned, controlled, lock, stock and barrel by the Zionist lobby. What does that mean, Kevin, for the possibility of an end to this genocide in Gaza? And breathing room for the Palestinian people to pick themselves up and start to rebuild their country. What does it mean, this Trump presidency, this second term of Trump? What will it mean, do you think, to what's happened and what will happen in Gaza in the future?

One would like to think that Trump sees himself as a deal maker and a pragmatist, and he wants everybody to like him because he stopped the wars. So he would like an end to this genocide and to get credit for it, but under terms that he could brag about being favorable to Israel.

But I don't think that's entirely likely because of the people that basically control Trump, like Miriam Adelson, the gangster widow who gave him $100 million, want the full ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The quid pro quo for that $100 million from Adelson was for Trump to rubber stamp the annexation of the West Bank. And obviously, the settlers and their representatives in Netanyahu's government, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, are totally dedicated to, if not exterminating the entire population of Gaza, certainly exterminating enough of it so that they can take over North Gaza and build their real estate projects with the help of Jared Kushner.

Can you confirm something for me there? I know Adelson's widow gave him $100 million, which is an outrage. Is she on the record as saying that she is in favour of the annexation of the West Bank? Forgive my ignorance if she has said this. I did have a sabbatical for about seven weeks while a lot of this stuff was going on around the election. Is she on the record as saying she wants to see the West Bank basically annexed completely once and for all?

I'm not sure if she's on the record, Richie, but I'm pretty sure that it's universally accepted that she wants that. And it's been reported in the Israeli press and to some extent picked up by the American press that the quid pro quo for the hundred million dollars was Trump rubber stamping the annexation of the West Bank. So yes, she obviously wants that. She's on board with the extremist settler ultra genocidal faction in Israel. But whether that deal was made officially...I think it almost certainly was. I don't think that would have been reported in the Israeli press the way it was unless it were true. I don't know why anybody would have forged it. So, yeah, I think we can pretty much take that one to the bank.

Yeah, she's not giving him $100 million just because she likes the way he looks or she's enamoured of his domestic policy plans. I hear you, but I'd love to do a bit more digging into this particular woman. So really, it's wait and see. But I mean, Trump is an avowed Zionist, isn't he? He's enthralled to Zionist bankers. We know about Trump's history in business. We know where he got his money. We know when and where he was bailed out and by who. I don't mean to be pessimistic, but it doesn't bode well for the people of Palestine if they have to depend on the US president to broker some sort of a deal for them. It just doesn't look good at all. And just before you come back, Kevin...You know, we had another United Nations complaint or statement condemning Israel's activity in Syria. I lost count after United Nations directives to Israel to stop doing what it's doing. In my years as a journalist, none of these diktats coming from the United Nations come with any teeth, like "we will sanction you back to the Stone Age" or anything like that at all. So I suppose what I'm saying is, if I was a Palestinian, God love them, I don't know what I'd be thinking now or where I could find any optimism.

I don't think there's any short-term optimism. Even more Palestinians are going to be brutally murdered for probably the foreseeable future. And it's going to continue to enrage the world, especially the Islamic world. And as I said we're going to see a shift to more support for the Palestinian resistance from the Sunni side of the Islamic world and it's not going to go well in the long term or even the medium term for the Zionists. If Trump takes over and is seen as being even more in the camp of even more of a slave to the most radical genocidal Zionists than Biden was, this is going to destroy America's reputation, not only in the region, but all over the world. Both the World Court, the ICC and the ICJ now are charging Israel with genocide. The Special Rapporteur of the United Nations is charging Israel with genocide. Amnesty International just put out a report charging Israel with genocide. And so Europe, which doesn't like Trump that much anyway, is going to become even more pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist as Trump does these things. The Islamic world, likewise. And the rage about this is ultimately going to backfire on the Zionists.

The military strategy for the resistance is basically that if we inflict even a tiny bit of the suffering and create even a tiny fraction of the level of insecurity for you Israelis that you're creating for Palestinians and others in the region you guys will go home, just like the French went home from Algeria. We'll have to wait and see. But with advances in military technology, making Israelis insecure may actually get a lot easier. And it's quite likely that some pretty horrible things, although maybe not quite as horrible as what's happened to Gaza, will happen to Israel. And it will become clear that the Jews can't stay in Palestine, because billions of people have committed themselves to make sure that they'll never be allowed to.

Final word to you then before we wrap it up. Final word on sanctions. Because for me, we've seen how the West has destroyed opposition to its imperialism by imposing sanctions on countries. We've seen it over the years. Chile—you know I'm an old Bolivarian socialist. I've told you that too many times over the years. So I know what they did in Chile, in particular Chile and Venezuela in the last few decades. It works wonderfully well. But where's the appetite for sanctions? And does the world need to wait for the United States to join in with sanctions? Why doesn't the wider region come together and say, look, we don't need the U.S. to join in with the sanctions we don't even need China to do it, but regionally we can do it and a number of European countries would probably say okay we'll go along and really hurt Israel where it matters — ban its exports don't import anything from Israel, don't export anything to it, starve it until its people realize that its behavior its government's tyranny and genocide are unacceptable.

Yeah, you put that really well, Richie. I don't know what to add. But I think that with Trump in the White House, rubber stamping genocide and annexation and so on, the world's revulsion will very likely lead to those kinds of sanctions. And it should have happened a long time ago. And I think that with the Axis of Resistance that's been based on Iran and its friends sort of stepping back, and now those who are not so friendly with them stepping up, it is going to create a very tough situation for this pariah nation or self-styled nation that's occupying Palestine. And so I think that there is some hope for resolving this through sanctions and pressure rather than the military strategy of ultimately causing so much terror and insecurity among Zionist Jewish settlers that they have to leave. It would be great if there was a way to do it that didn't require yet another ethnic cleansing.

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