Truth Jihad Radio

I just finished a 40-minute discussion on Press TV of Israel’s apparent invasion of Lebanon. Initial reports of Israeli forces crossing the Lebanese border were coming in as the interview started today, Monday 9/30/24, at 9:30 pm Morocco time = 4:30 pm Eastern. You can listen to the audio of the interview at the top of the page.

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

Globetrotting portrait painter Stephen Bennett wants to move to Russia—for a couple of years, at least. Specializing in vividly colorful, soul-revealing portraits, and having worked in Australia, Bali, Brunei, Cuba, Easter Island (Chile), and at least fifteen other countries, he recently wrote to Russian President Vladimir Putin:

President of the Russian Federation

Putin Vladimir Vladimirovich

23, Ulitsa Ilyinka, 103132, Moscow, Russia

Your Excellency,

My name is Stephen Bennett and I am an American portrait artist.

It is a great honor to present my ideas to you and your assistants.

God bless you all.

God gave me the talent of painting and now I search for ways to be of service with my gift to others.

My life has been saturated with the history, politics and culture of Russia.

I am writing to offer my services to you and Russia to celebrate your great culture.

I have a very strong feeling that my portraits could be of great service there.

I would like to come to Russia with my family and paint great portraits celebrating your people.

Please refer me to the proper government office so I can write them directly.

Let me know of any ideas you may have to assist me to achieve this dream.

I am open to any interpretation or new ideas about how my art can be used for the greater good in Russia.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Please reply by email: theportraitpainter(at)gmail.com

Respectfully,

Stephen Bennett / Стивен Беннет

President

Faces of the World, Inc.

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

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has been martyred. His murderers imagine that killing such a great man will magically solve their problems.

The Zionists, being tribal psychopaths, think in purely strategic terms. A psychopath sees no difference between taking an axe to a locked door that’s in his way, and taking that same axe to a human being who’s in his way. He is endlessly surprised that normal people don’t share his view.

Mossad chief Meir Dagan explained his love of assassinations to Ronan Bergman:

“Assassinations have an effect on morale, as well as a practical effect. I don’t think there were many who could have replaced Napoleon, or a president like Roosevelt or a prime minister like Churchill…It’s true that anyone can be replaced, but there’s a difference between a replacement with guts and some lifeless character.”*

High-IQ tribal psychopaths like Dagan are competent chess players. Their strategy involves trying to remove the opponent’s high-value pieces from the board while preserving their own. That might work in chess. But in life, it’s shortsighted.

Jim Morrison once noted that “all games contain the idea of death.” The word contain is crucial. As the Jews who dreamed up terror management theory knew, psychologically and spiritually stunted human beings—meaning the vast majority of people in secular cultures, and more than a few in religious ones— are dominated and driven by the fear of death. Games like chess, which ends with checkmate or shah mat (“the king is dead” in Farsi) are a way for players to contain the idea of death within the circumscribed realm of the chessboard with its players and rules, so they can avoid thinking about their own impending deaths in the real world.

Terror management theory suggests that the more the thought of death imposes itself on a person’s consciousness, the more frantic (and potentially pathological) the means of evasion. That is why people in secular cultures, who lack convincing doctrines or experiences of the immortality of the soul, expend so much of their time and energy on frenetic, meaningless diversions. They spend hours each day suffused in trivia, staring into their phones or TV screens. Many lose themselves in video games and pornography. The livelier and more imaginative ones may devote themselves to climbing Everest or the corporate or bureaucratic or military ladders, or to achieving athletic or academic excellence for themselves or their children. The exceptionally vulgar ones, Jews mostly, pursue money by any available means, and never seem to have enough of it.**

As the Jewish’ State’s ongoing genocide of Palestine and West Asia accelerates, only a fool could deny that the Jews are the most pathological nation on Earth. And as Jewish-created Terror Management Theory explains, that’s because their fear of death surpasses other peoples.’

The Qur’an says of the Jews:

“And you will surely find them the most greedy of people for life…” (2:96) And: “Say: ‘O Jews! If you claim to be Allah's chosen ˹people˺ out of all humanity, then wish for death, if what you say is true.’ But they will not wish for it, because of what their hands have done.” (62:7)

They are greedy for life (lifelong slaves of greed) because they are so intensely driven to avoid awareness of death. And the greedier they get, and the more crimes they commit in service to their greed, the more they fear death’s reckoning.

So Jewish tribal leaders, with their psychopathic gangster mentality, imagine that their enemies must think the same way they do. Like a psychopath on trial for an axe murder, the Big Jews struggle to understand the way normal people think and feel. Their baseline assumption is that their enemies are gangsters like them, and fear death the same way they do. They think that if they follow the Talmud’s advice to kill the best of the gentiles, they will demoralize their goyim enemies while removing important pieces from the chessboard, assuring their eventual victory.

What they don’t realize is that human societies are not chessboards, and human beings are not chess pieces. Normal people don’t play by psychopaths’ rules—though as the monstrous evil of their psychopathic enemy gradually becomes apparent, they will do whatever it takes to protect themselves.

If by pathological we mean “driven by extreme fear of death” (like the Jews) then it must be noted that their current enemies are not just relatively non-pathological, but extremely so. As Bergman describes in Rise and Kill First, Israel used murder to eliminate much of the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization and other secular resistance groups. That forced the Resistance to move beyond the fear of death. And thus the Islamic Resistance was born.

Bergman notes that Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and other religiously-based Resistance groups are much more formidable opponents than the secular PLO ever was. One reason, he points out, is that they are much harder to infiltrate. It seems that genuinely pious people have a good nose for sincere piety among their close associates. But more importantly, sincere Muslims (alongside other religious people) fear God more than they fear death. For them, there is no higher honor than martyrdom.

The rise of the religious Resistance in and around historic Palestine has greatly intensified an already-existing asymmetry in how much pain each side is willing to absorb. From the very beginning of the genocidal Zionist onslaught on Palestine, the indigenous people could tolerate more pain than the invaders could. Such is almost always the case when an invader attacks a defender: The defender’s advantage is that he is willing to suffer and die to defend his home turf, while the invader will tolerate much less pain and risk to try to steal someone else’s property. (Humans aren’t the only territorial animals who operate that way.) That asymmetry grows greater when the invaders are richer and more cosmopolitan than the defenders: they can easily go somewhere else and live comfortably, while the defenders can’t.

So even prior to the rise of the religious Resistance, the people of the Levant had a huge advantage in their struggle against the invading Zionist settlers: They could tolerate far more pain. But that advantage took a quantum leap when the baton of Resistance was passed from the PLO to the Islamic Resistance, thanks to the series of Mossad assassinations described by Bergman. Since the Islamic Resistance replaced the secular one, the Zionists have martyred many great leaders—and each time one falls, another arises. When they killed Hezbollah’s leader Sayyed Abbas Musawi in 1992, they got Nasrallah. Likewise, their murder of Hamas’s founder, Shaykh Ahmed Yassin, simply paved the way for leaders like Yahya Sinwar, who led the masterful October 7 concentration camp breakout.

People (as opposed to Zionist psychopaths) react to such martyrdoms by celebrating the martyrs and seeking to emulate them. As I write, millions of people across the Global South are wishing they could walk the kind of path that Nasrallah walked, and a significant portion of them will take action to try to make it happen, in a great many ways, big and small. Additionally, the radiant glory of Nasrallah and the other martyrs for Palestine by now contrasts so sharply with the infernal stench exuded by the slinking lying Zionist scumdogs that a significant proportion of Earth’s population now realizes that it has a psychopathic monster in its midst, a cancer that has to be removed by any means necessary. That dawning realization—like the dawning realization of a prehistoric human tribe that one of its members is a psychopath—will lead inexorably to the psychopath’s demise.

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah saw his martyrdom coming, and welcomed it. Shortly before the Israelis completely leveled six multi-story buildings that housed many women and children, slaughtering dozens of non-combatants in order to martyr a few Resistance leaders, Nasrallah tweeted:

“I may not stay among you for a long time. Procedures have been devised so that we are prepared. Even if we are all martyred, even if our homes are destroyed over our heads, we will never abandon the option of Islamic resistance.”

Among religious people, there is no higher station than that of a martyr who died in the path of God—that is, of justice, righteousness, and truth. Every Muslim on Earth prays to be able to rise to that kind of destiny and ultimately arrive in the highest level of Paradise where martyrs like Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah enjoy their beatific eternity.

So there will be no shortage of young people lining up to join the Resistance in hopes of rising to that kind of station and winning the greatest of victories in the next world—and, God willing, in this one. For every saintly commander of the faithful that the Zionists ignobly murder, dozens, hundreds, or thousands will rise up from their rose-scented footprints and continue forward on the path of God until the final victory.

*Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations (xix)

**As that damnable antisemite Marx put it, money is the real god of the Jews: “What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel.”

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

NASA whistleblower Richard Cook discusses Israel’s escalating terror attacks against Lebanon; his historical analysis of why “World War III now threatens on two fronts, Ukraine and Israel“; his thoughts on Andrei Martyanov’s new book America’s Final War; and why the Anglo-Zionist Empire has already lost.

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

Press TV

Joining us on this edition of the News Review, we have podcaster and journalist Esha Krishnaswamy joining us from St. Petersburg. We also have editor of Veterans Today, Kevin Barrett, who's joining us from Saidiya, Morocco. Welcome to the program, to the both of you. Let's start off with Ms. Krishnaswamy. Esha, please break down this political row that exists right now between Spain and Venezuela. Help us better understand the components of this.

Esha Krishnaswamy: Well, this is not the first time that Spain has granted asylum to members of the Venezuelan opposition. They also granted asylum to Leopoldo Lopez, who was also part of the Venezuelan opposition. And what most people don't realize is that the Venezuelan opposition engages in both paramilitary activities and extreme violent activities. In 2017, after the elections, they engaged in a breathtaking amount of violence. And even this year, after the elections, they engaged in a breathtaking amount of violence.

And what is also interesting is that they're supported by the US, the State Department, the (CIA front) National Endowment for Democracy. And in this year, they engaged in kind of many color revolution type tricks. I interviewed a journalist, Brian Mayer, and he was telling me the story where after the polls closed, the opposition got together many people in the station and had cameras and said, open the poll, let us vote, let us vote. But it was after the polls had closed. And they've burned down pharmacies, they've burned down many infrastructure.

So it's not a peaceful opposition. And basically, they know that if they allow the votes to be fully counted, they're going to lose. So their idea is to cry fraud early. And what Spain is doing is trying to delegitimize the election, even though almost every international observer has said that it was conducted freely and fairly. And so that is kind of why they've recognized González as the winner, even though the results show the opposite.

Kevin Barrett, please share with us your perspective on this diplomatic row between Spain and Venezuela, and where does this stance from Madrid come from?

Well, Madrid is, of course, part of NATO, which is U.S.-occupied Europe. So more often than not, the capitals of the European vassal states will go along with whatever they're told to do by their American masters. And in this case, the Anglo-Zionist empire that's in some ways headquartered in Washington, D.C., wants to overthrow this Bolivarian government in Venezuela and has been working at this now for decades because Venezuela sits on enormous oil resources.

Prior to the Bolivarian revolution, the American big oil interests and of course the strategic interests that depend on control of resources to control the world really needed to try to reverse that. And so they've been working to try to overthrow the Venezuelan government now consistently for decades. And unfortunately, Spain—which every now and then is capable of taking a slightly independent position by being a little more open to legally going after the Zionists for genocide than the Americans are, things like that—but they're not willing to completely buck their masters and support the Bolivarian Revolution, far from it.

So that's what's really behind this. It's really just like with the so-called war between Ukraine and Russia, which is actually a war between the U.S. and Russia. And likewise,

what we see here is not really a problem between Spain and Venezuela per se, even though they think of it that way because Spain has a history of colonizing Latin America.

But in fact, it's a conflict between the American empire and this recalcitrant country of Venezuela that thinks that it has the right to control its own oil resources.

Staying with you, Mr. Barrett, when it comes to countries like Venezuela, who benefits from this type of political turbulence and political instability in these countries?

Well, clearly the US cannot allow the Bolivarian governments of Venezuela to succeed, and they will do anything that they can to try to undermine them. And what we're seeing now is basically just another color revolution attempt to overthrow the government of Venezuela. And we've seen a number of these previous coup attempts. We also saw the likely murder of Hugo Chavez, whose death most likely was not natural, one of a long series of events, of U.S. imperial efforts to regain control of Venezuela and its oil resources. So it's a long-term struggle. But the arrogance of these people who think that they're the only ones in the world who can decide which governments are legitimate, which are not, what election outcomes are.

We had huge protests in the United States in 2020 over an allegedly rigged election. And that's far from the first likely rigged American election. But we don't see Venezuela jumping in and declaring that Trump is the rightful president after Biden is in the White House. It's the U.S. that runs all around the world interfering, saying who is which government and then overthrowing governments, installing US puppets.

And that's one of the downsides of the current world order, which is dominated by the American empire and the wealthy interests behind it, the oligarchs—disproportionately Zionist oligarchs, unfortunately—which is the reason that we have a genocide going on in Palestine that's being committed with complete impunity.

Ms. Krishnaswamy, do you agree with Mr. Barrett that the United States doesn't want Bolivarian governments like Venezuela to succeed?

It's obvious. Because before the Bolivarian Revolution in U.S. oil companies controlled a lot of the Venezuelan resources and Venezuelan people were completely impoverished. And after  Hugo Chavez ended up nationalizing many of these oil resources and also leading a more independent path, they've created many social programs, for example, for education, for housing, et cetera. and it's been it's clear that the US does not want such a project to succeed.

One of the most interesting things was in there was a State Department memo that talked about the Cuban threat. And the Cuban threat was basically that once people see Cuba, other countries in Latin America will think that they're entitled to things like food and education. And that's why they said they call Cuba a “threat of a good example.”

And it's the same thing with Venezuela and Bolivia in that they don't have to be indebted to Washington. They can have their own path. And that's why they are have been severely sanctioning Venezuela They've even literally stolen Venezuelan oil. They've taken Venezuelan resources and given it to Juan Guaido. And it's because they don't want Venezuela to be a threat of a good example of what can happen when a country has a truly democratic system.

All right. Thanks a lot. Podcaster and journalist Esha Krishnaswamy joining us from St. Petersburg and editor of Veterans Today, Mr. Kevin Barrett, joining us from Saidi, Morocco. With that, it brings us to an end here on this edition of the News Review.

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

Media and Communication Professor Emeritus Oliver Boyd-Barrett discusses his new article “Greenlighting the Escalation.” He writes:

We should expect with a fairly high degree of certainty that the US and UK will greenlight the use of Western long range missiles on targets in Russia…We can debate whether these attacks will be initiated before or after the US presidential election. Given the speed of Ukraine’s defeat in Donbass and stalling in Kursk I suspect sooner rather than later…Russian weapons will give much greater backbone to Islamic retaliation against Israel for the Gaza and West Bank genocides, and to the responses of Iran, Syria and Iraq to daily Israeli murder and other aggression, even as the US reduces its aircraft carrier presence in the region down to one (with the return home of the Theodore Roosevelt).

Is World War 3 probably only days or weeks away, as Gilbert Doctorow writes? Let’s ask Prof. Boyd-Barrett, whose new article “Long-Range Missiles on Russia; Hypersonic Missiles on Israel” begins:

Bottom Line

Mid-week of the week of September 8-14, many analysts, including myself, had expected with a high degree of certainty that the US would greenlight the use of Western precision-guided long-range missiles on targets in Russia.

At the time of writing on September 15 this had not yet occurred. The main reason for this reluctance to proceed can only be a reaction to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s statement on Thursday in which he declared, in effect, that any such greenlighting of long-range missiles on Russian targets would be considered by Russia to be a direct participation by NATO in NATO’s otherwise proxy war against Russia over Ukraine, because only NATO is capable of using these weapons, only NATO has the satellite reconnaissance capability necessary to navigate them, and the engineering skills to maintain, launch and fire these systems.

In short, NATO would have embarked on World War Three, and Russia would respond accordingly.

The use by Houthis in the Yemen of a hypersonic missile for an attack on Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport may be a signal from Russia of how its supply of weapons to the West’s enemies, in retaliation for any Western move towards the use of long-range missiles against Russia, will quickly reconfigure global geopolitics to the West’s disadvantage.

(full article)

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

Ken Meyercord, who once hosted Washington DC’s most interesting local TV talk show, discusses his article “The Trials and Tribulations of a Holocaust Denier.” That very informative article was intended to promote Ken’s September 22 talk on the subject at the popular DC venue Busboys and Poets. But then the usual suspects went into action. Ken reported yesterday:

As I feared, Busboys & Poets has cancelled my rental, as the topic of my Sept. 22nd event, Holocaust “Denial”, they say, “does not align with our values”—free speech, open-mindedness, the pursuit of truth apparently not being amongst their values. I offered to show them the Powerpoint presentation I would be giving that day, but they didn’t even extend to me the courtesy of allowing me to do so. You can see it here:

https://1drv.ms/p/s!AlN0wDRkG73zgul2ZB5vIeSBW2u5uw?e=QFh1V1

I hope they will have the honesty to explain to people already aware of the event and whom I have no way of reaching and so will show up on the 22nd that they cancelled the rental, not that I cancelled the event, but I’m not counting on it. From their website: “Busboys and Poets is a cultural hub for artists, activists, writers, thinkers, and dreamers”, to which can be added “hypocrites” and,  if they caved to threats of economic sanctions from the free speech squelchers, “prostitutes”.

If you know of a venue which will have an anti-Semitic (despite my Semitic wife) scumbag like me, please let me know.

I just went to the Busboys and Poets “Contact Us” link and left this message:

I was disappointed to hear of your cancellation of a proposed talk by Ken Meyercord. The great majority of academicians in the Global South, including every one of the many university professors I have discussed the issue with here in Morocco, knows that the canonical Jewish version of the Holocaust narrative is grossly exaggerated. What’s more, the exaggerated story is used to fuel the ongoing genocide of Palestine. So are you pro-genocide? Don’t believe brown people can be scholars capable of researching WW2 history? Or just cowardly and anti-First Amendment?Please take a look at Ken’s presentation.  SincerelyKevin Barrett

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

Wyatt Peterson, False Flag Weekly News co-host and author of Perfidy of Zion, discusses his latest article “Israel Did 9/11” and the previous one “Parallels: JFK RFK 9/11.”  Laurent Guyénot, author of JFK-9/11 and From Yahweh to Zion, joins us halfway through the hour.

Rough transcript

Kevin Barrett: Let's get going on your article “Israel Did 9/11.” That's a concise title. It's a concise presentation of some of the strongest evidence. So if you were going to try to convince somebody who didn't know this, what would be the first thing you would point to indicating that Israel had a hand in 9/11?

Wyatt Peterson: I found one of the most successful things is Larry Silverstein, because if you can use evidence, physical evidence to prove that the official story can't possibly be true, that those towers defied the laws of physics and came down at near free fall speed, then the next obvious question is, well, who owned them?

And so that opens up a whole substratum of details and leads that people can follow. And one thing I've been pretty successful with in dealing with people who are totally oblivious to any sort of wrongdoing when it comes to 9/11 is sending them to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. And once they get an understanding of all the anomalies, physical anomalies, then you show them who owned the towers, how the towers were purchased.

Vornado Realty was the frontrunner to getting the lease for the Twin Towers right before 9/11. And then Larry Silverstein was kind of like this dark horse who emerged at the the 11th hour due to manipulations by Louis Eisenberg at the Port Authority. And of course,

Louis Eisenberg and Larry Silverstein were both board members of the United Jewish Appeal of New York, the UJA, the most prominent Israeli fundraising body in in this country. And then you understand that those towers were only privatized one year before. You start looking into Governor Pataki's privatization scheme, and you find out that it was Ronald Lauder, head of the World Jewish Congress, a guy who's connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, who was the one who decided that they should be privatized, which made it possible for Silverstein to get them in the first place.

So it's a combination of pointing out the physical anomalies (and who privatized the WTC right before 9/11). I've noticed people really respond to that, because it's hard evidence.

And then that leads you to the next logical question, which is: Who was running security at the towers? The Israelis were trying to get the security contract as far back as 1987, and had actually secured it. Avraham Bendor and Zvi Malkin, two longtime Mossadniks who operated under Issa Harel, secured it on behalf of Shaul Eisenberg, who was Israel's Mr. Big in the Far East. He started Atwell Security of Tel Aviv, this ad hoc company, specifically to secure that security contract.

And it went through. Everything was set, all the I's were dotted, all the T's crossed, until the Port Authority found out that Avraham Ben-Dor was convicted of murder in Israel. He was the head of the Shin Bet when there was a Palestinian bus-jacking in 1984 and two Palestinian teenagers were detained. And he showed up on the scene and said, “just smash the heads with rocks.” And that's what his agents did. And he was actually tried for that and found guilty.

So that sort of scuppered their ability to secure the security contract in 1987.

He went to work for Jules Kroll and Maurice Greenberg's company, Kroll Associates. And after the 1993 FBI-instigated truck bombing of the World Trade Center, they secured the security contract.

So that's the network. You point these things out, these themes, these threads, and the conclusion becomes inescapable.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, I agree. And I think the name of Larry Silverstein is kind of an obvious one that a lot of us have been calling attention to over the years. Silverstein not only was the key guy in privatizing the Trade Center just a month or two before 9/11, who then doubled the terror insurance contracts over what the Port Authority had had before that, but then after the destruction of the towers, he ended up demanding double indemnity insurance money, leading him to collect a vastly larger sum than he had ever invested. He also seemingly confessed on the America Rebuilds PBS show that he had been party to the demolition of Building 7. And Building 7, of course, is the most obvious of the demolitions.

Every building in the World Trade Center was taken out by explosives. But Building 7 was a classic obvious controlled demolition. Everybody can see that it's exactly like all of the classic controlled demolition footage that we've already seen. Whereas the towers were slightly unusual in that they were top-down demolitions, deceptive demolitions. The other buildings were destroyed, not so much in controlled demolitions, but just by huge bombs cratering them.

Anyway, the fact that Silverstein actually confessed to Building 7 makes this a really good lead-in. And then you mentioned Silverstein's connections, his close ties with Bibi Netanyahu. He's on the phone with Netanyahu every single weekend, according to Haaretz. And he privatized the center, the World Trade Center, with the help of the network you just named. That's all pretty, you know, unmistakable evidence, isn't it?

Wyatt Peterson: Yeah, it is. And the PBS America Rebuilds broadcast (featuring Silverstein’s “pull it” confession) was one year to the day. I think it came out on September 11th, 2002. And the chutzpah to admit openly that “we had them pull it and we stood back and watched the building come down.” That wasn't a slip of the tongue. He didn't misspeak. He's telling you, he's putting it out there. This goes into the Michael Hoffman thesis on revelation of the method. He's putting it right out there. And when we fail to act on that information, it has this…this paralyzing effect. And to them, it's a big joke.

I'm sure he toasted some champagne afterwards and said, ah, these dumb goys, I can say whatever I want. I can go on PBS and tell them that, pretty much while there's still subterranean molten steel running underneath. The molten steel wasn't even gone yet, and he's telling them how he did it, how they “pulled it.”

And he says, “I spoke to the FDNY chief.” But the FDNY chief, Daniel Nigro, says “I didn't speak to him, and I don't know of anyone else who did.” So to put that out there in such an ostentatious way, and then to have hundreds of millions of people—it just goes right over their heads.

And here we are years later, and it amazes me how people are still not even questioning the official story that they were sold. It's funny because when I wrote my book, I didn't deal with a lot of the Architects and Engineers information. I didn't do a lot of the David Ray Griffin stuff (proof the official story is false). I pretty much just picked it up as a whodunit. And my intention was just to get it out to people because I figured here we are two decades later. No one buys the official story anymore. This will be perfect. My book will come out and bingo. Everyone will be able to see who did it.

And now I'm going back and rewriting, writing a new book. And I'm actually including a lot of that information. Because one of the real eye openers was how few people actually question this stuff. It was like they'd never been introduced to this information.

You'll recall the information used to be all over YouTube. You'd go online and it was everywhere. And now it's not like that. And unfortunately, people don't really have access to it.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, that is kind of disheartening. I didn't see this coming, I have to admit. I guess that Cass Sunstein did when he published his article, “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures,” which later became his book, in which he said that someday it may be necessary to make conspiracy theories illegal. And I guess we're seeing that now with people being arrested for what they post online in the UK. And he said, “but for now, before they can be made illegal, we should be infiltrating conspiracy movements and spreading ‘beneficial cognitive diversity’ in order to, quote unquote, ‘disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories.’ So this was Sunstein's recipe for how to push back against 9/11 truth back in 2009.

When he said, “someday we'll have to make conspiracy theories illegal,” David Ray Griffin and myself and others in the truth movement thought, what's this guy smoking? How are you going to make them illegal? We have a First Amendment. And the internet is run on the assumption that it's absolutely illegal for any platform to be anything other than 100% viewpoint neutral. That is, on anything remotely like a political, philosophical, or religious question, they have to give every side exactly the same access, exactly the same boosting or whatever. You can't censor one side and promote or boost another side. That's completely against the Communications Decency Act, among other things. It's also against the whole basic founding principle of the Internet.

So none of us saw that coming. But then around 2015 suddenly it all flipped, and the think tanks came on with an orchestrated policy propaganda campaign saying that “conspiracy theories and misinformation are so dangerous that we have to limit speech now. The First Amendment is out of date and dangerous.” We just had another article from The New York Times about how dangerous the First Amendment is.

So we've seen a massive chilling effect of free speech. And so that change you mentioned has happened. So 15 years ago, google 9/11 and you get basically nothing but 9/11 truth information. Because that's all anybody was interested in around 9/11. Today it's all suppressed and hidden. You have to really know what you're looking for to find it. How do we fight that?

Wyatt Peterson: It's tough, because people don't want to do the work. In this new article I wrote which can be found on truthblitzkrieg.com, I loaded it with internal links that'll bring you right to articles from Haaretz, The New York Times, The Times of Israel, etc. And i sent it out to a few people. And a couple of the comments I got back were to the effect of, “where'd you get this information? Do you have access to secret government files”? This information doesn't make any sense.” And I’m like: “The whole article is loaded with links that'll take you to mainstream news articles about the five dancing Israelis for instance, the Mossad agents that were celebrating Flight 11 hitting the North Tower, then appeared on Yariel Lapid’s television show back in Israel and said “our purpose was to document the event.” I mean, there's no ambiguity here, but people just don't want to do the work, and they just refuse to engage with the information.

I notice they go through a series of stages. At first, they just deny. They're like, nope, nope, that's preposterous, that's crazy. And then when confronted with unimpeachable facts and evidence, they just sort of shut down and just refuse to engage with it. So it's really a tough situation because people have become so apathetic that they don't even really care about 9/11 insofar as really, really caring about it.

Like every year they might feel solemnity and they might, wave their flag or they might go to the 9/11 memorial that was created by the Israeli son of the ambassador, Michael Arad. But they don't actually take meaningful action on anything.

And when you try and bring this up and you try and get them to feel some sense of indignation, they just can't seem to bring themselves to do it. And it's really discouraging because 9/11 was what sent me hurtling through the looking glass. This was like the big event. I was in high school at the time and I'm still on the trail of the perps today.

I think it's very un-American for people to not want to engage with this information and get active in some capacity, in whatever way they can.

Kevin Barrett: I agree. And it's part of a larger picture. You start to notice that actually 9/11 wasn't just a one-off. Just like the Palestine crisis didn't start on October 7th. I’m currently translating Yusuf Hindi's book, Occident et Islam, which traces the Jewish messianic millenarian roots of Zionism back at least 500 years, arguably almost 1000 years, almost to Maimonides.

And it does seem that it's really hard to understand why forces in the United States would blow up the World Trade Center when it's full of people. What's the big advantage to that? The whole idea of an inside job seems kind of dubious. The first thing people think of is, why would anybody in the security apparatus of their own country do something like that?

But once you get that bigger picture and you see that the Zionists have been planning this type of thing, and specifically planning to greatly increase their power and (they hope) bring on their Messiah, meaning conquer the Holy Land and from the Holy Land rule the world. This has been their plan for 500 years. They've been planning to do this by creating an apocalyptic war between the Christian world and the Muslim world.

So this larger historical context actually goes a long way in explaining this, just as 9/11 goes a long way in explaining what we've seen since 9/11 and what we're seeing today in Palestine with this genocide.

Wyatt Peterson: Yeah, and I read your new article on the rape riots over in Israel, and I thought it was perfect. It dovetails nicely with what we're talking about because the magnitude of evil to carry out something like 9/11—this is unique in human history. It's not like all sorts of other people go around doing things like this. And that's where you get into the Talmud and some of the mindset, the ideology that motorizes this whole Zionist agenda. It really is satanic. It really is sick. And I think more and more people are really starting to see that as things get more egregious over in the Middle East.

And there's no doubt about who did it. It's funny because there's this misconception that people have when you start talking about 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination. You start talking about a possible conspiracy. They say, do you know how many people would have to be in on it? It would be this big sprawling network and there'd be all these leaks.

And that's not the case. It's actually a relatively small group of people placed at the key nodal points throughout all of these events. And they have a stronger code of omerta than the mafia. These aren't people like these dumb guys that couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery. These are people that will play in the long game, powered by this really virulent ethnocentrism.

And to your point, that's what they're trying to do. They're trying to disrupt things, make things so chaotic, because they believe they're paving the way for the coming of the Moshiach, the rise of the Jewish people, the world court seated in Jerusalem. I mean, this is insane stuff, but that's the facts of the case. And that's why an event like 9/11 is just a great mitzvah. It's another step along this twisted course, bringing us to that, the coming of the Moshiach, the reign of the Jewish kingdom.

Kevin Barrett: And one question that arises around the anniversary of 9/11 is, might they try something big like this again? I mean, if they can get away with 9/11 they can get away with pretty much anything. And it worked to their strategic advantage. It didn't help the United States empire. Tjhe US empire wasted $7 trillion on these useless counterproductive wars for Israel. And we destroyed most of Israel's enemies and problem states in the region. We weren't quite able to get to Iran, but they're still working on that. So the Israelis prospered massively from 9/11, and nobody else did. And since they got away with that…Could they try something else?

I was just discussing with Alan Sobrosky the possibility that the Zionists are going to try to accelerate their full ethnic cleansing of all of Palestine, not just eliminating all non-Jews from Gaza, but also from the West Bank. And that would entail eliminating the Islamic world's oldest and greatest architectural monument, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third major holy site in Islam.

So to do that, they would need fog of war. They would need some kind of huge excuse. If they just do it without any excuse, it'll just utterly destroy their legitimacy and any chance that Israel will exist into the indefinite future. But if they could find a way to make this happen where it looks like they can make a case, a plausible case, that they're the victims—which is what they did after October 7th, when in fact they had to grossly distort the reality of October 7th to do it. But they own the media so they can distort things.

So do you think that another big false flag, sort of like 9/11, could be used to trigger that final genocide of Palestine that Netanyahu and his partners want?

Wyatt Peterson: Absolutely. That's why we're seeing the Al-Aqsa Mosque being turned into such a powder keg with Ben-Gvir and all these people.

I think that's the next logical step. And you just said it. They own the media so they can get away with anything, no matter how over the top and ostentatious. When you look at 9/11 it wasn't very well done. I mean, it was, but you can easily follow these leads and discern who did it. It's not like they set up layer upon layer upon layer of front men, and it becomes this maze that you can't possibly have a way through. It's pretty self-explanatory once you confront the evidence.

Kevin Barrett: It was badly done way in that. These buildings falling down, they don't look like buildings falling down from fires. They look like buildings blowing up. These so-called radical Islamic hijackers didn't look remotely like radical Muslims. They were all drinking and carousing on Jack Abramoff's casino boats and snorting cocaine with pink haired stripper girlfriends. And they didn't look like hijackers or pilots. They didn't look like people that possibly could have flown even single-engine Cessnas. And they didn't look like people that could have hijacked an 80-year-old woman's Volkswagen Beetle. I mean, the whole thing—none of it looked real.

Wyatt Peterson: Right, exactly. And they didn't take any care to really attempt to make it look authentic when you look at the flight paths alone, that should be enough to refute the entire story. Or the fact that these buildings came down at freefall. If you were really trying to make it look authentic, you wouldn't have just defied the laws of physics and brought these massive engineering marvels down at the at the speed of freefall. But they don't care because they own the media, so it doesn't matter how sloppy these events are, they can get away with it.

It's the same thing with the Kennedy assassination. Their fingerprints are all over that. And then Oswald gets apprehended and here comes a Jewish gangster and he just shoots him at point blank and nobody makes that connection. And that's like, oh, well there's an investigation into it. And then a Jewish attorney for the Warren Commission (Arlen Specter) steps up and says “one bullet, seven wounds,” and people never piece that together because they own the media, they control the narrative so they can get away with pretty much whatever they want.

And people don't see the Jew. like if these were all Chinese peopl—if if there was a Chinese guy in Dealy Plaza filming the motorcade, and then he sold it for today's equivalent of 1.5 million dollars, that chinese guy worked in the Dal-Tex building which was owned by two Chinese guys, and then a Chinese guy jumped out and killed Oswald, and then a Chinese guy stood up and said, “one bullet, seven wounds”…then there's no problem. People would be like, whoa, this is insane.

And it's the same thing with 9/11. If this was any other group of people, it would be so obvious. But people don’t—Americans don't see the Jews.

Kevin Barrett: Well, we're trained not to. You're an evil, disgusting anti-Semite if you even say the J word. A lot of people try to say Zionist instead of Jew. And in a lot of cases, Zionist maybe is the right word if you want to include all the Christian Zionists. But let's face it, the Jewish Zionists are the heart of the Zionist project. The Zionist project is very deeply rooted in Jewish millenarian messianism and the Jewish community. So I think we should be allowed to talk about the truth, about the relationship between Judaism, Jewish identity politics, and Zionism, and these crimes that are being committed in Zionism's name, and in the name, indeed, of the Jewish community.

Wyatt Peterson: Yeah, absolutely. I listened to your first hour with Alan Sabrosky. I actually quote him in my new article. He sums it up really succinctly. The quote I used is, he said, “the evidential trail for 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq runs through PNAC, AIPAC, and their cohorts, through the mostly Jewish neocons and the Bush administration, and back to the Israeli government. None of the denials and political machinations can alter that essential fact.”

And that's true. That says it all right there. That is the belt of transmission. That is the network, this ethnic network that you can uncover, that you can track, and it leads right to the top of all these highly charged political crimes.

Kevin Barrett: Absolutely. Well, it's time to try to bring Laurent Guyenot in. Lauren Guyenot, is the author of JFK-9/11 and The Unspoken Kennedy Truth, which cover similar ground to what you've covered. And he, being a historian, puts it in a long-term historical context. And there he is. Welcome, Lauren Guyenot.

Laurent Guyenot: I'm doing fine.

Kevin Barrett: Wyatt Peterson here has been following a lot of the same paths that you have, and doing a really good job of it.

Laurent Guyenot: Nice to meet you, Wyatt.

Wyatt Peterson:  I read your book, JFK-9/11: 50 Years of Deep State, about ten years ago. My father gave me a copy, and I thought it was great, so I've been following your work ever since. I also have a book From Yahweh to Zion that was translated by a rather notable scholar.

Kevin Barrett: I would think more people would be writing the kind of stuff you guys write, because it's so important. But it seems like they don't have the courage, I guess. What do you think, Laurent?

Laurent Guyenot: Well, there are a lot of books about Kennedy. There are a lot of books about 9/11 too. Just not so many books are willing to follow the Israeli trail. Actually, I haven't been working on 9/11. I'm not intensely into 9/11 research now. So I don't know exactly what's what's being published. I don't even know what happened to Christopher Bollyn.

Kevin Barrett: I just recently reconnected with him. I had a couple of people asking about what happened to him. He is okay. I found somebody who knows him. He's kind of in in retirement. I guess he just wanted to stop taking all the heat that he's taken for all these years.

Laurent Guyenot: Yeah he did what he could. He did he did a lot. I think he had a lot of influence. But it's true that there are not so many people working on that (Israeli responsibility for 9/11). And as time passes…For people of our generation, it's still the big turning point in history. But I imagine for people who are even 40 years old today, it hardly affected their life. They were 25 or 30 or 35 years old. So maybe it's history for them, I suppose.

Kevin Barrett: Wyatt, you're younger than us. What's your sense of the next generation down that was younger than you when 9/11 happened? In some cases, I guess they were too young to really even remember it. I know not so long ago, back when the internet was still free, the polls showed that the younger people were actually figuring out 9/11 and coming over to 9/11 truth more than the older people. But today, I don't know if that's still true. What's your sense?

Wyatt Peterson: There seem to be pockets of young people. You look at a guy like Nick Fuentes, who has a large following, and it seems like that generation doesn't buy into a lot of this. For instance, you see these news articles where it's like, “warning, caution, young people aren't believing the Holocaust story anymore.” So it does seem like there's a massive awakening. It (the propaganda) doesn't have the same effect anymore that it had on my generation and certainly you guys' generation.

It does seem hopeful at least. But again, you follow things online and you really think there's a lot of momentum and it's like, here we go, we're on top of things. Then you go into the real world and it's like, where are all these people? You follow these things and you think there's this big movement, there's this burgeoning groundswell, and you start talking to some people and you see it's still a small minority of people.

But I do think that there is hope because I don't think that the younger generations really are buying a lot of the Jewish nonsense anymore.

Kevin Barrett: Laurent, do you think that the just open, blatant, cartoonish evil of this genocide in Gaza is going to fundamentally change people's understandings of Jewish identity politics and its roots in Judaism, and open up a lot more minds to these kinds of issues?

Laurent Guyenot: Yeah, I hope so. I hope so. But I don't know. I’m living in France so in France, yeah, I think a lot of people are realizing what Israel really is. People who are really trying to get deep and solve the mystery of what Israel is are starting to raise a lot of questions I'm not sure so many people go to the point of trying to find the identity of Israel in the Hebrew Bible, as I did. Most people don't really have a clue why Israel is some kind of psychopathic country. But they do see it's a psychopathic nation.

I was actually listening to Nick Fuentes today. He is doing so much. He's quite impressive. I just discovered him a few weeks ago and I find him really impressive in the way he wants to really tell the whole story. But he's a Christian so of course he cannot see things from the same point of view as I do. Which is tragic in a sense. The tragic situation is that all those Christian people are really wonderful. They're religious. They're moral people. They're dedicated. They're ready to die for their country.

But from my perspective, there's something they cannot see. Although Nick Fuentes sounds sometimes, I haven't listened to him so much, but... When he says Christ is the foundation of our civilization and Christ means Christ on the cross who died for those who hated him, he's coming with a Christian outlook that is perhaps—he's probably a deep guy trying to find how to save Christianity from Judaism, or to go to the root of the Jewish problem, of the Israeli problem, without harming Christianity.

That's a dilemma. I cannot blame people who don't like that I deconstruct the Hebrew Bible. I cannot blame them, I understand.

So it's difficult. What do you think about that?

Kevin Barrett: Why it does seem that among Christians—Nick Fuentes being a really good example—I really admire him, everything I see of him. I’m impressed. There's him, and admirable but less utterly fearless people like Tucker Carlson, who's getting better, and Candace Owens, who's getting better. And then, of course, E. Michael Jones, who I think is barking up the right tree in so many ways. So do you think that there's a possibility that Christian movement could sort of retake Christianity from the so-called Judeo-Christians, meaning Christians who are basically owned and controlled by Jews?

The Quran directly warns us Muslims against the [Jews and Christians] bracketed together, that is, the Judeo-Christians, the Christians controlled by Jews. But it says that the real Christians will be the best friends of the Muslims. So is there any chance for a real Christianity to escape from jewish control?

Laurent Guyenot: I think we're starting to see that re-emergence now. But there are also multiple points of attack where you can launch this battle, one of them being Christianity. If you look at the history of Christianity and Catholicism, you have years of material with which you can prosecute this war against international Jewry or Zionism. You can appeal to Catholics based on their pre-Vatican II history.

And obviously there are racial fronts on which we can wage this war. So it's good to see a lot of people fighting within whatever capacity they can on all these different battlegrounds.

You mentioned Tucker Carlson. He's taken a different approach. He's obviously a mainstream figure, and he's starting to bring some of this in, in his limited capacity, which is encouraging. Candace Owens, she's starting to—I know Nick Fuentes has been pretty critical of her, but she's doing her part. I think she's been very solid fighting this thing within her capacity in her own way. Even David Icke, in his own way, is sort of fighting this thing.

So I do think there's multiple fronts that this battle can be waged on. I'm hopeful seeing all these people in all these different avenues, doing that part in whatever way they can to push back against this. Because it's getting so degenerate and so out of control.

Wyatt Peterson: Laurent, one thing I really commend you for, one thing you did brilliantly is your book on the Kennedy assassination (The Unspeakable Kennedy Truth). It’s the book that needed to be written. I've been giving that out to people. It's digestible. It's like you distilled all the pertinent facts from Piper's book. And Piper's book, good though it is, is a tough one just to drop in the lap of somebody who's not really going to look into these things or isn't really a prolific reader. So you went in and distilled the really critical facts and put it in a much more digestible, readable format. I hand out quite a bit to people as an introduction into a lot of these themes. So really, good on you. It's a very, very effective weapon in this, in this crusade.

Laurent Guyenot: Thanks. Yeah, I think that's my best book, probably. I mean, the most useful one. I'm quite happy with it. Thinking about this whole question…Maybe it's not necessary to get into the religious issue. After all, the main issue for Americans is how can America reclaim its own sovereignty and escape the control of Israel? And on that issue, there's no real need to get into “are the Jews the chosen people or not.” I mean, who cares?

So as you said, there are many ways to study this question. It can be tackled on a purely political level. And that's what people mostly need to realize, that America—and Europe too, by the way—is ruled by Israel. When people start to really understand that, whether they're Christian or Muslim, they don't have to to argue on religious ground.

Quite often I wonder: is it useful to raise the question, the notion of chosen people? At some point I decided, yes, it's important because Netanyahu is talking about the Gaza people are like Amalek. So then we do need to get into the religious roots of Israel. It's absolutely necessary, but maybe not for everybody.

Wyatt Peterson: You do a really good job on that. There are certainly a lot of problems with the Old Testament. I think Christians would be wise to adopt a more Marcionic perspective on things. Because I do think that Americans and Europeans need some parameters. They need moral parameters that they can find and historically have worked for them in Christianity. You look at how the gospel came out of the first century and changed Europe, and you look at the art and architecture, and these brilliant works of poetry and philosophy, everything really took off. So I do think there's something to elevating the consciousness level through Christianity. But you do a really good job exposing a lot of the problematic passages and problems with the Old Testament.

And I certainly do think it's problematic. I think Christians make a mistake trying to defend it by jumping through hoops and doing mental gymnastics…like when Benjamin Netanyahu goes out and says that the Palestinians are Amalek, which is a tacit acknowledgement that they're just going to genocide them off the face of the Earth. And then some Christian jumps in and tries defending that particular passage.

I think there is something very powerful to Christ and to the gospel of Christ. I think it does furnish us with a set of moral parameters that we need. I think there's something wired in the human being that resonates really profoundly with that. And so I don't just throw the whole thing out. But I read your work, I read E. Michael Jones's work, and I can appreciate them both. And I think you do a great job with it too.

Laurent Guyenot: Yeah. And what about Adam Green? Adam Green is really attacking Christianity as being part of the problem and not the solution.

Wyatt Peterso: I also sympathize with his approach, although I think it's a bit sometimes too much. Bhe's got a point.

Kevin Barrett: I think he's right about the downside of Judaism. He's brilliant at digging up all of these crazy things that rabbis say that nobody else seems to notice. But I think he's really wrong about both Christianity and Islam. That is, I just don't think there's really much evidence that Christianity or Islam has somehow made it so easy for Jews to just sort of take over using Muslims and Christians as their puppets.

Yes, Jews have been plotting to do that, they've been trying to do that, but it's been a sort of a messianic millenarian fever dream that hasn't really been applied in reality up until Zionism finally began to be implemented just a century and a half ago. And so I think that it's a real misinterpretation. Because I think that the revelation through Jesus  is obviously not in the spirit of the Torah or the Old Testament at all. It’s quite the opposite. It's a reformism that's very, very opposed to the dominant older interpretation, the interpretation that then becomes Judaism.

So Christianity is an anti-Judaism, obviously. The whole spirit of it is the spirit of loving, compassionate universalism and submission to God, which is also, of course, islam (with a small i), the universal, true message of submission to God.

And likewise, so is Islam. They're both universalisms. And neither Christians nor Muslims really have a history of being slaves of Jews. The Jews have always been a privileged nation but perhaps a well-contained minority community in both civilizations. And they've had more trouble and more clashes and so on in the Christian civilization.

But the Jews weren't running things because they brainwashed Christians and Muslims into believing in their God. That's just not true. Nothing remotely like that happened until pretty recently with the Zionist movement and the takeover by the bankers who created the Zionist movement.

Wyatt Peterson: Yeah. And they've really worked hard to erode the Catholic Church from within with Vatican II and the American Jewish Committee. And so if Adam Green says Christianity's been this weapon wielded by the Jews to sort of disrupt or pacify tough, macho, pagan society, I don't agree with that. Because if that was the case…I mean, the Talmud has Christ burning in hell and boiling excrement. They hate Christianity. They hate Jesus. You look at Hollywood or pop culture and everything they do is almost this inversion of Christianity, and they can't really stop themselves or prevent themselves from just dragging it through the mud. And I think that speaks of the fact that they know the power that it has when it's given pride of place in our society, in our civilization.

And you can hearken back to pre-Vatican II, and you have years of teaching contra the Jews and hashing out a workable society to live, if necessary, side by side with this irascible race. So that's why I think they've worked so hard to really turn it into this

this simulacra of itself because, otherwise it just, it doesn't make any sense. And I think the proof is in the pudding. When you look at European civilization and what the gospel did to it—these were people that transcended the limitations of their fallen human form and were able to create things that still stagger the modern imagination. I think there is a divine inspiration that we've lost, that's been plucked out of our hearts, that's been plucked out of our minds, by these scheming Jews, and much to our own detriment. And I think that bringing that back and giving it pride of place in our civilization could only serve to better us as people, to better us as men and families, and as builders even, as poets and philosophers and dreamers.

You can reverse Darwin. I think we started out as angels and we're devolving into apes. I think Michael Hoffman said that one time. That's kind of where I stand with the whole thing. I don't think that Christianity is a weapon of the Jews. I think that they've infiltrated it, watered it down, turned it into a sort of inverted form of itself, like they've done with everything else.

Laurent Guyenot: Yeah. For me, it's still a question. How early, for example, did the Jews infiltrate Christianity? If you go back to historically, you cannot really solve that question. But anyway, it was created by Jewish people. It's a complex question. And another way to look at it is that  even though jews hate Christ, they also need Christ. And there is a kind of dialectic that has kept Judaism alive, or even that has created Judaism. Some scholars would say because the Talmudic Judaism grew after Christianity appeared. There is an argument that Judaism or Israel would have disappeared from the face of the Earth without Christianity. So even though Jews hate Christ, they need to hate Christ. It's a kind of dialectical process that makes Christianity, to some extent, a necessary element for the strength of Judaism as an anti-Christian force. The anti-Christian spirit so deep in Judaism would not exist without Christianity. So it's a complex question.

Anyway, different people need to work on different aspects. Some people are interested in one aspect or the other. Personally, my personal evolution in terms of my religious outlook is that I just don't like anymore this God who speaks and gives revelation. I think it was a catastrophe for humankind in the long run, or maybe it was a necessity, a historical necessity, in Arabia, but maybe Islam, in the long term today, is a really big,nlike a fossil reality that prevents history from moving forward. But history will move forward anyway.

Recently I came to be interested in stoicism and to realize that within Roman culture or Greco-Roman culture, there was really a lot of deep philosophy and spirituality. They didn't need revelation. They didn't need God to speak and and give a bunch of dogmas or laws. They don't need Satan, certainly.

I got interested after I heard you, Kevin, talk about Emerson. I didn't read much. I found it a little bit difficult to read. But anyway, I get interested into this kind of people who are trying to find the roots of European culture apart from Christianity. And I think actually we tend to exaggerate. That's something I thought quite a lot about it since I did a PhD on the Middle Ages. I realized we tend to see European history through the Latin clerical writing because almost nobody else wrote. So we have this picture of Europe as being a Christian civilization. And we have this idea that everything came out of Christianity. Architecture was Christian. Music started as Christian. Painting, all the arts, all the thinking.

But that's actually not true. Artists were Christian just because they were living in a Christian society. But I don't think, I'm not sure that the Christian element in Western civilization is so essential. I'm suspecting that there is a false perspective we have on that.

Kevin Barrett:  Look at the buildings around you in France, look at the cathedrals and compare them to the today's skyscrapers. Can't you see that there was something a lot better when culture was Christian?

Laurent Guyenot: Well, I can look also at the Roman architecture. It was great too. It was not monks and priests who build the cathedrals. The church was financing all this but…I’m not sure that the Christian spirit…I have different different issues with that notion that everything great in Europe came from Christianity and without Christianity, it would never have happened. I'm not even sure that people were so Christian in the Middle Ages or in the 12th century, 13th century. This is, to some extent, a false perspective we have because we look at this period through clerical writings. Almost no one who was not a church man could write. So I have a doubt about this.

Kevin Barrett: Right. But that's because the knowledge at that time, the serious knowledge, was all tied into religion. And so if you wanted to be a person of knowledge, you had to go through that institution. So that tells you something about the culture, doesn't it?

Laurent Guyenot: Yeah. But if you compare Roman Catholicism and Eastern Christianity…One thing I realized through reading the books by a young Byzantinist…He showed that actually Constantinople, Byzantine civilization, had two pillars of their culture. They had the Christian culture and they had all the Greek treasures of philosophy, which they cherished very much. So they cared actually more for Athens than for Jerusalem. So their culture…and without the Byzantines, we would not know about Plato, we would not know about Aristotle. They preserved it. The Arabs did too, but the Arabs played a role because they found all this in the Byzantine libraries.

So there's a big difference in the Byzantine civilization. They preserved the Greco-Roman culture: philosophy, history, and so on. And then that came to Rome.

Kevin Barrett: And then there's Persian culture, too. And then there are ideas coming from China and India. So there's a lot of hybrid knowledge going around.

And it isn't all just one particular religion. That's undoubtedly true.

But we hit the end of the hour, so we can't get into the details about that, unfortunately. But it's great to see you still working on all kinds of really interesting aspects of looking into history and trying to figure out what people haven't fully understood yet, which is a noble undertaking. And it's also fantastic to keep the 9/11-JFK issue alive with Wyatt Peterson picking up the torch. Thank you, Wyatt. Thank you, Laurent.

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

It’s like a horror movie. Crazed killer zombies are butchering men, women and children. They rape and torture with impunity. Hearts and souls dead to any semblance of humanity, they lust for fresh blood and vow to “erase every living being.” Though the worst mayhem is mainly limited to a 141 square mile strip on the Mediterranean, the catastrophe appears to be on the brink of escaping containment.

If Zionism is like a zombie movie, why not make a zombie movie about Zionism? Wait—that’s already been done. It’s called World War Z, and it came out in 2013, ten years before the Zionist genocide of Palestine shifted into overdrive.

Whether through serendipity or predictive programming, World War Z prefigured two colossal disasters that hadn’t yet happened at the time the film was made: the COVID pandemic and the post-October-7 genocide of Gaza. The plotline revolves around a virus-instigated global pandemic and the World Health Organization’s efforts to fight it. And the heart of the film is its Jerusalem sequence, in which the heroic Jewish State saves itself from the zombie virus by building a gigantic wall—until the wall is horrifically breached in scenes that seem to prefigure the phantasmagoric Israeli propaganda version of October 7th.

MondoWeiss’s Jesse Benjamin ably deconstructs the film in “Zombie Hasbara: ‘World War Z’ and Hollywood’s Zionist embrace.” Excerpts:

The Times of Israel may be only slightly exaggerating when it calls this “the greatest piece of cinematic propaganda for Israel since Otto Preminger’s “Exodus.” Not only is Israel’s fanatical Wall Building proven to be justified, against the hordes of undead invaders, and not only are Jewish victimizations paraded to justify the aggrandizement of Israeli military prowess, but it’s Israel’s supposed humanism, and multicultural inclusiveness, which in the end weakens the fragile post-apocalyptic state and allows the zombies to overrun everything….

Gerry (Brad Pitt)…picks up vital intel from a deranged CIA officer who suggest that answers lie in Israel, which has somehow managed to wall itself off from the plague, and also mysteriously seems to have known in advance that it was coming. Gerry says something about “they’ve been building walls for two millennia,” and then he’s off. Before the viewer can process whether the film is about to go down some post-9/11 Jewish conspiracy path, Gerry is landing in the Holy Land fortress-state to the site of slowly fluttering Israeli flag close-ups, triumphant marshal music, and confident IDF soldiers speaking in Hebrew, rushing around, smiling in soft filtered light close-ups…

…Gerry’s already informed the audience that wall building is natural to Israel, so the reinforcement of ancient and Separation Walls is plausible, and comes as not at all veiled justification of Israel’s current and widely condemned Apartheid Wall. He questions the Mossad chief on how he knew the threat was coming, and gets a lesson in revisionist Zionist history, starting with the legitimate failure to take the threat in 30s Germany seriously, and then the same failure from similar or greater threat in 1973, when “we were almost washed into the sea,” and at the 1978 Olypmics, both of which “we did not see coming.” It’s the classic, and academically disproven myth that Israel was always on the defense in its wars, and also the conflation of Palestinians and Arabs with Nazis, as ever-present existential threats to peace-loving Jews.

World War Z, like its predecessors, uses zombieism as a metaphor. George Romero pioneered the genre with Night of the Living Dead, whose zombies evoked 1960s political violence and cultural upheaval. He followed it with Dawn of the Dead, in which shopping-mall zombies hilariously parody consumer culture.

So what do World War Z’s zombies stand for? “Palestinians” or “goys” would be an overly simplistic answer—though Max Brooks, Mel’s son, who wrote the novel on which the film was based, probably was thinking along those lines.

Since films are dreamlike and can carry hidden meanings that their makers did not consciously intend, meanings that often directly oppose conscious ones, I submit that we put Max Brooks on the couch, call in Dr. Freud, and start poking around into what World War Z’s zombie virus really represents. The first thing we notice as we pry into the film’s unconscious is that it’s obviously no coincidence that the Z in World War Z stands for both zombie and Zionism. Though at the conscious level (the film’s overt plot) the Zionists are anti-Zombie, the unconscious connection through the letter Z reveals that at the deeper, unconscious level of the film’s real meaning, the Zionists are the zombies.

Once we notice that, everything snaps into place. Why did Max Brooks radically change the zombie archetype from its individualist precursors, in which zombies are too brainless to cooperate or do much of anything other than lurch around looking for people to bite, and instead offer zombies who swarm together in cooperative packs or tribes? The answer, I submit, is that the zombie virus in World War Z is Zionism— specifically, the propaganda memes that cause it. These propaganda memes cause Zionists to unite in tribal fanaticism against perceived outsider threats, just as the zombie virus in the film causes zombies to band together and attack non-infected humans.

Richard Dawkins, whose reductionist view of evolution is unconvincing, has offered an even more reductionist view of religion, according to which religious texts and rituals are memes that seek to replicate themselves in much the same way that genes do. Though Dawkins’ view of religion in general is overly pejorative, his notion that religion is a virus that causes its hosts to act badly toward the non-infected is not entirely inaccurate when applied to Judaism, the religion that birthed genocidal Zionism. Unlike the major world religions, which are all universalist, Judaism has never fully transcended its origins in tribalist supremacism. Human beings whose minds are infected by the virus of tribalist supremacism are liable to band together with other virus victims and treat the non-infected the same way that the zombies in World War Z do.

Once we understand World War Z’s “zombies = Zionists” equation, the real meaning of the plot swims into focus. The virus-crazed zombies are trying to eliminate all of the non-infected people and take over the world. Where have we heard that before? It’s right out of Jewish eschatology, which awaits a Jewish messiah who will lead the Jews in conquering, exterminating, and/or subjugating all non-Jews. The questions that messianic Zionists in Netanyahu’s cabinet debate—“should we eliminate all Palestinians, or keep a few as second-class citizens to hew wood and draw water”—will be applied to the world’s entire non-Jewish population when the time comes, according to Jewish messianic-millenarian prophecy.

Our interpretation of World War Z casts a new light on the film’s pivotal scenes of zombies swarming over the wall around Jerusalem. Those scenes are actually dream-disguised depictions of what happened in 1967, when the previous (Muslim) regime proved overly tolerant, a weakness that exposed it to genocidal conquest by the zombie Zionists, who had murdered JFK and installed their puppet LBJ in power to enable their unholy land grab.

Brooks depicts Israel as a tolerant, multicultural paradise that survives for some time by building an impregnable wall, which finally collapses in the end times under the weight of the zombie hordes. But our interpretation of the film’s unconscious meaning, in which the Zionist-zombie conquest of Jerusalem in 1967 is a major step towards world conquest, resonates not only with Jewish-Zionist messianic millenarianism, but also with Islamic eschatology. Sheikh Imran Hosein explains that the Zionist conquest of the Holy Land seems intimately connected with the prophecies in the Qur’an’s Surat al-Kahf, which foretell a time when Gog and Magog, presumably in alliance with the Zionist Antichrist (Dajjal), finally break through a gigantic wall or barrier and overrun and destroy civilization. The Zionist zombies of World War Z breach the wall in a manner reminiscent of the Qur’an’s Gog and Magog.

World War Z is, at its first (superficial) level of meaning, an agent of Zionist propaganda—indeed, “the greatest piece of cinematic propaganda for Israel since Otto Preminger’s “Exodus.” That makes the film itself a kind of Zionist zombie virus. Like all of the other thousands or millions of Zionist propaganda films, books, articles, images, and so on, it is designed to take over the minds of the unwary and use those minds, and the bodies they control, in service to its own ends. But, as we have seen, the film also conveys a deeper meaning, based on the identity of zombies and Zionists, that is in strong tension with the surface meaning. The Zionist mind virus, which is supposed to take over the victim’s brain surreptitiously, seems to be unconsciously confessing to the multiple crimes it is committing, in much the same way the protagonist of Poe’s “The Tell-Tale Heart” unintentionally confesses to murder.

But is that “confession” necessarily unconscious? Another, even weirder possibility is that the filmmakers are deliberately putting the truth—that the Zionists are the zombies—right out there where everyone can see it…if they want to. That most people don’t want to, and indeed will shy away from the awful truth that they are enslaved to sheer evil, and utterly compliant with it, is a cynical but not-entirely-inaccurate take on humanity that the Zionists have long been betting on. (Some believe that the Zionists deliberately commit their worst crimes out in the open, or deliberately fail to adequately conceal them, either to inculcate learned helplessness, or out of a strange belief that if the victims know about the crimes but fail to stop them then the bad karma falls on them.)

When World War Z came out in 2013, most of its Western audience was so drenched in MSM Zionist propaganda that there was little chance of the masses fully awakening to the fact that the Zionists are the zombies. Eleven years later, the genocide of Gaza has changed the equation. Today, an ever-increasing segment of young well-educated Westerners knows the Zionists are monsters. And the Global South, which has always known it, has been galvanized by Gaza in such a way that it can no longer avert its gaze from the genocide of Palestine. This mass awakening spells Zionism’s doom. After the world awakens from its Zionist nightmare, World War Z may eventually become a cult classic in which audiences gather to laugh at its ludicrous propaganda, while relishing the irony of the film’s Zionists-are-the-zombies subtext.

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

Alan Sabrosky , once Head of Strategic Studies at the US Army War College and more recently “the most censored man in America” makes his “first Friday of the month” appearance. He writes:

“Preferred topics for today:

1. Gaza conflict – my “take” on it.

2. Tucker Carlson & the historian on WWII (origins & conduct)

3. Europe and its “open borders” (I would like to discuss what happened to the German women’s anti-migrant group)

4. That last FFWN item “US Navy Dismisses Warship Commander After Photo of Backward Rifle Scope” & parallels elsewhere

5. I would like to outline verbally the conclusion to my work on “America’s Endgame” since I may not be able to write it….

And of course anything you would like to raise.”

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