Truth Jihad Radio

Enjoy the audio podcast above and transcript below. For more where that came from, listen to today’s (Friday’s) live Truth Jihad Radio with Alan Sabrosky, Wyatt Peterson, and Laurent Guyénot (or wait for the archive here) and watch tomorrow’s False Flag Weekly News.

Richie Allen interviews Kevin Barrett (rough transcript)

Last night I interviewed former BBC journalist Tony Gosling, a staunch defender of the rights of the Palestinian people and a fierce critic of Israeli government policy. Tony said he's optimistic and he has become a little bit more optimistic in recent days, partly because more than half a million Israelis took to the streets last weekend. Now, we're not saying that those half a million Israelis have the Palestinian people at the forefront of their minds. Maybe not, but they've had enough of Benjamin Netanyahu. They want hostages home and they want a deal.

Earlier this week, the UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced that the UK government would suspend as many as licenses, arms licences that the UK has with Israel. Now, they have many, many more licences because there was a genuine concern that some of those licences may assist the Israeli government in breaching international law.

My friend Kevin Barrett is on the line. He's a terrific broadcaster, writer, academic. He's much more besides regular visitor to these shores. And he's also a staunch defender of the rights of the indigenous people of Palestine. Welcome back, pal. It's been a very long time. I hope you had a great summer. How are you?

I'm doing OK, Richie. Good to hear you. And yeah, it's been a it's been a long, hot summer. Compared to what they're experiencing in Gaza, of course, it's not that unpleasant, no matter how hot it gets anywhere else.

No, it isn't. Do you share Tony's optimism with the protests we've seen in Israel, the demands for a deal so that the other hostages can come back, the UK government's intervention, which seems like just a gesture maybe to the maybe the hard left of the Labour Party. But nonetheless, it's kind of unusual. Does it give you any optimism that we might be nearing some sort of truth that might last?

Well,I think that we may be seeing a slowdown in this current round of accelerated genocide through extremism, but I don't think that's really going to change the overall trajectory of the history. What we're seeing right now is not just something out of the blue that started October 7th, but it's been an ongoing genocide, not only since 1947 but really for the past 500 years. There's been this plan, this messianic millenarian Jewish plan, to bring the Jews back to the Holy Land and fulfill the eschatological prophecies, which involve putting a world conqueror on the throne in occupied Jerusalem who will subjugate not only the local people there, but everyone. All of the non-Jews in the world will be subjugated to the Jews and to their Messiah, the military conqueror who rules the world from his throne in Jerusalem. And every Jew will have a thousand plus non-Jewish slaves.

That's the eschatological vision of the end times that has been very mainstream in Jewish culture. And for years, there have been these not-so-mainstream efforts to realize it. And that's what the Zionist project actually is. And Netanyahu knows this very well. His father was a Princeton professor who was an expert on the subject. And his cabinet members are people who just can't keep their mouth shut about it. So that project may reach a temporary setback if Netanyahu falls, but it won't go away.

I've never heard of this. You'll probably say unsurprisingly. But how seriously should we take texts that were written several centuries ago? I mean, I can't imagine for the life of me, whatever happens in the next 40, 50, 60 years, that we're going to see an Israel populated by Jewish people, each of them owning a thousand slaves, while central Jerusalem is the central government for the rest of the world. I just don't buy it, Kevin.

Yeah, I don't really buy it either as a realistic depiction of what's actually going to happen, but (instead I see it) as a sort of a roadmap that's been organizing the plans of the people who created the state of Israel and who are continuing its expansion and avidly yearning for the day that they greatly expand their borders and their influence over the world.

And yes, it's quite open. They do want a world capital. Even some liberal Zionists who are relatively secular want Jerusalem to be the world capital. People like Bernard-Henri Lévy, the French intellectual. So it is an important idea historically because it's organized the efforts and the thoughts of generations and generations and generations of very, very talented people who have been striving to realize it. Now, they may not all take it literally, the thousands of Jewish slaves and so on and so forth. But the tribal effort to totally subjugate non-Jews to Jews, to maximize Jewish power as much as possible, and to link this to creating this ever-expanding, ever more powerful and influential Jewish state in the Holy Land—that's very real. It's probably the most important historical phenomenon of the past five centuries.

Yeah, the Greater Israel Project is a real thing. People should educate themselves about it. They should learn about it. There's no doubt about that. You're listening to Kevin Barrett. Kevin is in Morocco (being interviewed) on Thursday's programme.

Little victories, maybe not little, but for free speech, the owners of Facebook Meta have told the State of Israel, effectively, they're standing by their decision that people can use terms like from the river to the sea on their Facebook accounts and they won't be deleted and they won't be banned. Is it tokenism, Kevin, or is it maybe just a little sign that maybe opinions are changing in certain parts of the world because of the awful spectacle we've seen in the last 10, 11 months, at least 40,000 men, women and children obliterated in Palestine. The land, the city is completely destroyed. Horrible videos lately on social media of Israeli bulldozers, seemingly just for the hell of it, ripping up roads that might be very useful when the Palestinians attempt to get off their knees and rebuild their lives again. But little things like this, do you see that as some kind of a sign the tide might be turning against the Israelis in terms of public opinion around the world?

Yes, I think it is turning. And I think social media has played a huge role. But there has been a tremendous censorship push against social media. And I don't think it's going to end overnight. But these little steps forward, of course, always welcome. We've seen this huge pushback against the platforms that allow people to post pro-Palestinian content. We've had people arrested for their pro-Palestinian content. Over the past several weeks in the UK there have been several people arrested for posting things that were deemed to be too supportive of the Palestinian resistance. So it's going to take a while to turn that one around. At the same time, the reality is just so horrible that they can't completely hide it. So it's an interesting situation where the censors are kind of trying to play whack-a-mole as the majority of the world, certainly the vast majority of the global south, is very much aware of the reality of what's going on and posting it on social media. And then the billionaire, mostly Jewish Zionist oligarchs, not all of them are Jewish, but if they're not Jewish, then they're still owned by the Zionists, like Elon Musk, who was forced to go and genuflect before the Holy Holocaust memorial in Israel, that have shadowbanned pro-Palestine voices. They've kicked people off their platforms.

And then again, we've been seeing these actual arrests. And people like Scott Ritter pulled off airplanes and then raided by the FBI. And the fact that Scott Ritter is an outspoken defender of Palestine and specifically of the resistance and of Hamas probably had a whole lot to do with that.

So, yeah, I think it's a great sign when they loosen up the censorship here and there. But again, we have a long way to go.

Yeah, you mentioned the arrests. Tony said that to me last night. I didn't know anything of this. I only returned from a three week holiday this week. Tony Gosling said to me, and he's right, Richard Medhurst and Sarah Wilkinson were among several high profile writers and bloggers who take as is their absolute right to take a very pro-Palestinian anti-Israeli government position, were arrested on some sort of counter-terrorism investigation. Horrendous stuff

I want to pick you up on Musk. I’m no fan of Musk. Musk has said “nobody forced me to go to Israel. I did because I’m open-minded. I wanted to go and see for myself.” That's what Musk says.

Yeah, and he knows as well as everybody else knows that if he says anything very different from that, it's not that he'll never work in this town again…but he's obviously well-versed in who has the power. And I think it's really telling that somebody as rich as Elon Musk, possibly the world's richest man, is so terrorized by Jewish power that he has to do these things and he can't speak frankly about them. He also had to yield to some of their demands about who to censor, who to shadow ban and who to reinstate on his platform after he was pressured by the ADL. These Jewish organizations organized a boycott of Twitter and basically were threatening to bankrupt it if he didn't surrender. So his response? A trip to Israel and kissing the holy Holocaust relics and putting on the little beanie and worshiping the forthcoming “Third temple” where they'll be slaughtering pink heifers and all of that sort of thing. It was obviously a demonstration of surrender. So when he says he was just curious, he's lying, because he knows he has to lie to stay in business

It's interesting. You and I have been friends for years and you know this is a free speech forum. There's no but coming. There's never a but coming. You will say what you like and I won't get in the way of it. I've never been comfortable with the notion of Jewish power. I've never been comfortable with it because I don't believe in it. Zionist power and Israeli power—well, I'd be a lawyer and a shill if I didn't acknowledge it. I spoke openly on this programme for years and I even did this week. The most successful lobby in the UK, whether it's politics, whether it's food, whether it's textiles, no matter what it is, tobacco…the biggest lobby is the Israeli lobby. And it's the same in the United States of America. It's all powerful. It's Israeli Zionist power. And all too often, my experience has been—and I know a lot of Jewish people, they're blissfully unaware of what goes on, Kevin. In my experience, blissfully unaware of it.

Right, Richie, and I'm certainly not trying to impugn Jewish people in general. And obviously, when we're talking about Jewish power, we're not talking about some sort of racial or genetic trait. Racism against Jews is just as evil and ugly as all other forms of racism. But the fact is that critics of Jewish ideology have a good case. Gilad Atzman is well known for making one version of that case. The French intellectual, Laurent Guyenot—I translated his great book from Yahweh to Zion—has made another case.

I happen to be a Muslim, not a Jew or a Christian. I think there are some really serious problems in Jewish ideology. The Jewish religion itself has these very, very problematic supremacist tenets. And since the Jewish community has actually become somewhat less religious but paradoxically more millenarian and messianic over the past 500 years these problems have actually gotten much, much worse.

There's a whole discussion to be had on the intellectual level about what are the problems in Jewish tribal ideology that we're critiquing here. That's what I’m talking about when I talk about jewish power. I’m talking about the way that a certain self-styled Jewish elite manipulates other people who identify as being Jewish by calling on this rabidly supremacist tribal ideology that's based in the Jewish religion, but it's not completely limited to the Jewish religion.

You know I have the utmost respect for your religion. I do, for everybody's religion. I'm no scholar, but I'd be a lousy broadcaster if I didn't take you up on you saying you have problems with the Jewish religion and Jewish ideology. And I did say to you today, there's no Shanghai on this programme. I said I wanted to talk to you about a lot of the anti-Muslim stuff that's going on, particularly here in the UK at the moment, Kevin. But I will have listeners who are conservatives, and they will take a very dim view of Islam. Some of them will be screaming at me, Richie, what about some of the very problematic passages in the Quran? And they will say to me, what about Surah 27:63? They will say, this is what Allah says:

“Now go and strike the infidel and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

They'll say, come on, Kevin, that doesn't sound great.

That's not a Quranic text, Richie. What you just quoted was from the Old Testament, the Jewish Bible, not the Quran. There is no such text as that which you described in the Quran. It doesn't exist. I just looked that up. The Qur’an’s Surah 27:63 says:

“Is he not best who guides you through the darknesses of the land and sea and who sends the winds as good tidings before his mercy? Is there a God other than God? High is God above whatever they associate with him.”

What you just read, I recognize that: That's an Old Testament verse. There is nothing about slaughtering children and donkeys in the Quran. It's in the Old Testament, not the Quran.

Yes.

This is so symptomatic, Richie. The whole world has been propagandized into believing that the defects of the Old Testament, which is indeed a genocidal book in many respects, are then projected onto the Quran, which absolutely is not.

Now, to the listener who sent me that, you do have a chance to respond. You can send me a message because I got that through the app. There's an app for the program people can message. And I knew something like this might come up. Kevin has said this is Old Testament. I haven't read the Quran, so I'm in no...position here whatsoever to challenge Kevin on it. If you want to come back on it, let me know and I'll put it to him.

What about those who say that that this Kevin, this idea,,.,And I push back against this all the time because Muslims have lived in the UK for, I don't know, like in recent times, 60 or 70 years, let's say. And for the most part, Pakistani Muslims, Muslims from other parts of the world, Africa or other parts of the Middle East, have lived in fairly relative harmony here in the UK.

But there are those who say, and they point to things like grooming gangs and other things like that, they point to the Quran and Muhammad marrying a 12 year old girl and all this sort of stuff and they say ultimately no matter what Kevin or anybody else says Islam and the way of life and the belief system is incompatible with a secular country like the  United Kingdom. What would your response be to that?

First, there are billions of dollars of propaganda money being spent to try to both bring in all of these refugees and immigrants and so on, and then to incite the native population against them to blame Islam. Tommy Robinson, of course, is the classic example of this. He's 100% Zionist funded. He is basically a representative of the state of Israel. And his job is to incite relatively low information British people against Muslims on behalf of Israel.

And that's part of this 500-year-old plan. Believe it or not, Richie, the leading lights of the Jewish community, like Rabbi Abarbanel and Solomon Molko, for 500 years have been planning a messianic Jewish takeover of the world, like I described earlier, by way of creating an apocalyptic war between Christians and Muslims. They actually tried to do this in the 1500s by convincing the Pope to go to war against the Ottoman Empire. And that plan to turn Christians and Muslims against each other has been the mainstay of Zionist thought for years. So Tommy Robinson with his shekels that he's getting from Tel Aviv is just one agent of this centuries-old Zionist plot.

Now, yes, there is an immigration problem. I don't blame native peoples for not wanting to be replaced. Certainly the Palestinians can relate to that. But the religion of Islam is not a part of the problem at all. In fact, the bad behavior by immigrants from Muslim backgrounds is very much correlated to their not being devoted and practicing Muslims. So if you want to improve the immigrants behavior, you should try to get them going to mosques. You should build more mosques and try to help intensify their Islamic religiosity.

I don't think that's going to go down too well with some of our listeners. The idea of building more mosques, Kevin, particularly in Ireland, where the almost suicidal policy of the Irish government to throw the doors of the country open to anybody and everybody who wants to come in, while at the same time, of course, completely decimating public services. So the indigenous people of the country are struggling anyway. Let me put some messages from our listeners to you.

Michael says, what does Kevin say? And Kevin, I didn't think it would go like this, but I know how amiable you are. So we can have this conversation. Michael says, doesn't the Quran say that Christians and Jews are pigs and monkeys?

Absolutely not. The Quran says that among the best friends and allies of the Muslims you'll find are the Christians or those who say they are Christian because they have very devoted priests and monks and they are humble, not arrogant. And among the worst enemies will be the Jews and the pagans, and the implication is that they're arrogant and not sincerely devout, humble, and religious.

So Christians are actually very highly viewed in the Qur'an and in the covenants of the Prophet Muhammad, peace upon him, which are actually still in force and incumbent on all Muslims everywhere. We Muslims are enjoined to protect Christians, to protect their churches, and to protect the monks and all of their activities. And the Muslims throughout history, the rulers, have a somewhat mixed record at doing this, but it's actually pretty good. It's certainly far better than the Christian rulers protecting Muslims in their mosques and so on.

So where did this come from, this pigs and monkeys thing? Well, that's describing the members of the Jewish community who have rejected the prophets. And the Quran very strongly criticizes those members of the jewish community who have repeatedly out of self-interest and greed and egotism rejected the prophetic message of humility and love and surrender to God. So (the “pigs and monkeys” who arrogantly reject this message) would of course include the Jews who refused to accept Jesus, peace upon him, as the Messiah.

We muslims agree with Christians that Jesus, peace upon him, is the one and only Messiah. And we strongly oppose the “Jewish” Antichrist which will be the “Jewish messiah” whose job is to conquer the world militarily and enslave all non-Jews. That's the messiah that Jews have always been waiting for. And we Christians and Muslims together have acknowledged that Jesus is the one true Messiah.

Why don't you know this? Because your media is controlled by the party of Antichrist.

And yet there are many—I can't argue with any of this because I'm not a theologian. And I know you're an academic and you have converted to Islam. You've obviously embraced it, Kevin, and you familiarized yourself with the Quran. I'm sure you read the Quran every day. So I just can't, I'm not qualified to argue against any of this. I'm not. So listeners are throwing things at me, attempting to throw me a branch, Kevin. I'm drowning in a river here because I don't know anything about any of these texts at all.

I'm not having any of this Jewish Antichrist stuff. We'll come maybe back to that later on. I've seen some of the Torah as much as I've seen some of the Koran and the Bible. And there's a lot of love there and compassion and community and sharing in the Torah as much as there is in the Quran and the Bible, at least as I've seen. But again, I'm drowning here. I have no theological knowledge whatsoever. But I'm going to put some things to you. There are some customs that seem to be uniquely Islamic in the modern day. And I don't think they're the exception. I think they're fairly widespread that I would believe are very incompatible with somebody like myself who's a secular guy who considers himself to be agnostic.

And I’m particularly talking about forced arranged marriages, which is a big thing. Female genital mutilation, which is a fairly big thing. Women, certainly in some countries where Islam is kind of preeminent, definitely being treated as second class citizens. And the court system and some of the measures taken against people for committing what I would consider to be non-crimes. These are fair questions and fair points to ask, aren't they? And a lot of our listeners are coming at me with, here's Ben, “what about Muslim ideology, Sharia law, and the dim attitude to women Muslims have?” These are fair questions about the religion.

It's kind of too many all at once. But just to take a couple of them, it's true that many Muslim majority areas have these kinds of traditional marriage customs, things like forced or not so much forced marriage, but family-arranged marriage (almost always arranged by older women) just like traditional Hindu areas in India do, to exactly the same extent.

That is, you're no more likely to have forced or arranged marriages in a traditional Muslim area, let's say in India or anywhere, as in a traditional Hindu area. The same kinds of practices are in all traditional societies.

So what we're talking about here is traditional ways versus modern individualistic ways. And the religion of Islam is not really weighing on either side. In other words, there's nothing in the religion of Islam that favors arranged marriages over any other kind of marriage.

There is, of course, a (scholarly) literature that shows that arranged marriages are more likely to be happy and long-lasting than non-arranged ones, but we won't get into that. It's a kind of a dead-end discussion there, because again, it's not a religious thing.

Likewise, actually even more so, female circumcision is absolutely against the religion of Islam. So say the great majority of Islamic scholars. It's not practiced in the vast majority of Muslim countries and by the vast majority of Muslims worldwide. So it's only a minority community that practices that based on indigenous African tribal roots.

It's not coming out of Islam. There's nothing in Islam whatsoever that encourages female circumcision.

Unfortunately, there is a tradition of male circumcision in Islam, and just my saying “unfortunately” already marks me out as a bit of a free thinker within the religion. But I think that of all of the Islamic practices that a rational person would critique, I think (male) circumcision would be number one. But the Islamic version of circumcision, which often happens at seven, eight, nine years old, is not nearly as devastating to the personality as infant circumcision, which is practiced by all Jews and actually a majority of US Americans.

A lot of Christians…I was circumcised as a baby.

Yeah, it's a Jewish idea.

Yeah, I've not been to therapy for a long time, Kevin. But I think if I do go, I might explore it. I might do regression therapy, hypnosis. Because I can't imagine it was too pleasant when I was an infant to have the circumcision. But my parents opted for it.

You're listening to Kevin Barrett. Kevin's a friend of ours, a friend of mine. But it's my job to challenge him. And it's your job to challenge him when you're doing it. Kevin, many of us wouldn't know about September the 11th and what might have gone on that day, the false flag event that it was and what it led to. He's one of the guys most responsible for us knowing about it. We'll be forever grateful to him for it.

You'll find him on unz.com. You'll find him on truthjihad.com. I'll put links to where you can find Kevin on the podcast notes.

He converted to Islam. He lives in Morocco with his wife Rabia, great lady, author. If you're listening, it would be lovely to be chatting with you today.

Colin says, Kevin Barrett is engaging in the classic Islamic tactic, and I'm not saying this now jokingly, I'm being fair to my listeners, that they use to lie to us infidels. Kevin, you are using something called Taqiyya, T-A-Q-I, Yankee, Yankee, Alpha. Taqiyya, it's your tactic, Kevin. You're throwing misdirection at us. Islam is not really as good as you're portraying it. It's an ancient, backwards, belongs in the Stone Age religion. That's from Colin.

You know, it’s kind of hilarious that people actually believe this stuff. Because it's really low-grade propaganda. Nobody who takes an introduction to Islamic studies class at a university would ever be vulnerable to believing that taqiyya is about systematically lying to try to make Islam look good. That's ridiculous.

The word taqiyya refers to a practice that Shia Muslims, who are a small minority within Islam representing perhaps at the very most 10 to 15 percent of Muslims, have traditionally (avoided conflict with Sunni authorities through silence or dissimulation)…the Shia have their ways of doing things and Sunni Muslims have their way. And the Shia tradition has typically been kind of a revolutionary or at least sort of a counterculture within Islam. That is, the Shia are people seeking justice and wanting to sort of push back against the Sunni rulers. And so it's been viewed as kind of dangerous and subversive by the Sunni majorities. And therefore, there have been periods of persecution of Shia people within Muslim communities.

So the notion of taqiyya only ever referred to a Shia practice. That is, it does not apply to 85% to 90% of Muslims, including myself. I'm from a Moroccan Sufi-Sunni background.

And what taqiyya’s about is that the Shia, if they are being persecuted by powerful Sunnis, are allowed to conceal or dissimulate their actual beliefs so that they can get along in Sunni society. That's all it is. It has nothing to do with Muslims talking to non-Muslims. It never did.

And it is Zionist liars, propagandists, who made up this “taqiyya” story and foisted it on you.

Do you ever think that you, however bright you might be, every other Muslim, every Jew, every Christian, that this is just one massive game of identitarianism that we're all suckered into, that we're all drowning in while this technocratic dystopian transhumanist society is being built around us? Even great minds like yourself and I’m not kissing your arse you are a great mind, I disagree with you on many things, but i admire you for the way you think… Do you not, because of your scholastic background, do you not leave room for this, that we might all be drowning in identity politics while we're all being marched off to the abattoir of dystopia and technocracy? What do you think?

Yeah, I think there's a lot to be said for that. And I would discourage taking too much of an identity politics approach to Islam or any religion. I kind of get forced into it a little bit because there are so many outrageous, insane misconceptions about Islam that are being pumped into the communication systems backed by billions and billions of dollars in propaganda money. For example, 9/11 was a gigantic public relations stunt against Islam. That was its number one purpose. It was part of that 500-year-old Zionist plan to turn the Christians against the Muslims and trick them into an apocalyptic war.

So indeed, identity politics is bad news. I take a bit more of a traditional perennialist approach to religion, which is that ultimately there's one God, one truth, with many different symbolic languages for talking about it, and many different traditions of rituals and behavioral codes for living in harmony with it.

And I think a rational person has many good reasons to accept Islam's claim to be the last and best preserved of the classic revealed religions. But that's a long story, so I won't give you all the details there.

So yeah, I think identity politics is part of the divide and conquer operation. But I don't think the religious aspect of it is necessarily the worst. I think the nationalist aspect is maybe even worse. Here in the Islamic world, where I'm now living in Morocco, these countries, most of the countries in the region, the Arabic-speaking countries in particular, have been sliced and diced into little tiny ethnic and sectarian enclaves. The Oded Yunon Israeli plan from the 1970s for breaking them up into even smaller pieces has been put into place, too.

So I think that nationalism is the single biggest force for dividing people up and turning them against each other. Religion less so, but religion is often exploited by the people who are trying to play that game.

One final question before we talk about something else that I must put to you. It seems to me there's no doubt that in Germany and in Sweden, and we're seeing a bit of this in Ireland, where we've had a rapid influx of young men coming from different countries, but whose identity would be, whose religion would be Islam. There's no doubt I don't believe, and you know me, I'm honest, we've known each other for years, I don't buy into the b******t, I make my own mind up. It seems that where we've had those influxes, we have seen an increase in crimes and attacks against women, which are really alarming for people in those areas. So what I want to ask you is, and this is not sarcasm or childishness or silliness at all, I mean it. If it's true that there's been an increase in these crimes, and I think the evidence bears that there has, and I don't get my statistics from Tommy Moron Robinson, by the way…What part is religion playing in the behaviour of these young men? Because to the people on the ground in Dublin and in Sweden and in Germany, the natives, I should say, they seem to believe that these young men's religious beliefs are playing a fairly big part in their behaviour. Now, you don't have to answer for it because you're not somebody who takes a dim view of women. You're an upstanding man. But you are a Muslim and I'm putting it to you. So what would you say to that?

I think that's getting it exactly backwards. I think that to the extent that there is that problem, and it's a real problem..but we need to remember, that the vast majority of people from the Muslim countries and indeed (Christian) Sub-Saharan Africa and wherever else people are coming from into places like England and Ireland, are just normal people and likely to be upstanding citizens.

Here in Sadia, Morocco, on the Mediterranean, I'm in a vacation town that swells from 4000 people in the winter to maybe 40,000-plus in the summer. And the great majority of vacationers are ethnic Moroccans from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and perhaps some from the UK as well. And these people are well to do. They buy these nice villas, you know, near me in roughly the same neighborhood that I'm in. They're economically successful. Some of them become doctors and lawyers, others are contractors and things like that. So these are people who were good citizens of their European countries, or still are in many cases. And some of them are actually coming back to live in Morocco.

And so the majority of non-European people who come to Europe are like that. They're going to be normal people and probably good neighbors and good citizens. In America, there'd be no medical care for half the country, the poor half of the country, if they didn't have Muslim doctors.

But then there is this rise in the crime rate (in some European countries) that you mentioned. Does that have something to do with religion? Of course not! It's the opposite. The problem is that when you have a religious culture that then loses its religion, people who grow up in a religious culture and then they end up in a non-religious culture and they stop being religious…That's when you have problems.

I learned that here in Morocco (when I first came 30 years ago fearing pious “extremist” Muslims, and then learned that criminals and other dubious characters in Muslim countries are almost exclusively non-religious).

Hang on, hang on. Allow me to interject. That's very cheeky that. I see what you did there. So they're taken out of their Islamic environment and now they're in one where it isn't an Islamic environment. And this somehow explains the change in behavior. I would say, no, hang on. Maybe you're right, maybe religion hasn't got anything to do with it. Maybe it's a cultural thing. Maybe where some of these young men come from, maybe they take a pretty dim view of women's rights, or they are brought up to think that men are superior than women and have more rights than women. That's a fair point, that.

No, it is not. And my point about religion is, I think, absolutely accurate, and it doesn't just apply to Islam. For instance, the African-American community was vastly better off in the 1950s and before that when it was much more religious, than it has been since the religious foundations of the African-American community have been systematically destroyed by secularist propaganda, by welfare laws that encourage women to have babies out of wedlock, by the CIA bringing drugs into their neighborhoods and organized efforts to make money by selling them drugs and alcohol. The fact that African Americans have become less religious has everything to do with the horrific problems that we find in poor black neighborhoods in the United States. And the same thing is absolutely true of Muslims, whether they're in Morocco or other Muslim majority countries or whether they're in Europe. They are part of the demographic that's losing religion and turning to things like drugs and fast living and alcohol and materialism and wanting to have money and looking at pretty pictures of girls on the Internet. All those worldly things. When they get into those worldly things, a certain percentage of them are going to do whatever it takes to get what they want. And religion is the best way of slowing that process down, by turning people to something higher, sublimating those base impulses into something noble.

We don't have to get into this today. Maybe another day. You've been a great sport, by the way, because I didn't imagine the conversation going like this. I didn't. So I really do appreciate that. But for those of us who don't believe in a God with these rules, I mean, where do we go? We'll talk about that another day. I want to read three or four comments. You don't need to come back on the comments because I want to ask you about... my fears that in the very near future, these open dialogue situations that we have and that you have with many other commentators and researchers, they might be coming to an end because of the greatest attack on free speech I think that humanity is ever known. But just a couple of quick comments. Susanna has been in touch, who says, what about the way women are treated? What about the women who don't want to have an arranged marriage and have been killed by a family member? We talked about that. Thank you for that. Donald said, he's Moroccan, Richie. He isn't Moroccan, Donald. Kevin is Caucasian. He was born in the USA. But thank you for that. And anyway, hi to Chris. Never mind all the pros and cons of the various religious texts. All garbage in my opinion, he says. The Israelis are, it seems, aiming for the clash of Islam and Christendom. And that's from Chris, huge interest in this, unsurprisingly. And as I said, we didn't think the conversation would go this way, but thanks to Kevin. We'll avoid it next time. We'll talk more about geopolitics. But I wanted to talk to you, Kevin. I don't know how it is in Morocco. Maybe you will know. I don't know how it is in Africa in general. I should know. Maybe I need to look it up. But in this country, in the UK, in Ireland, of course, and it's coming to the United States as well, they're really moving against the last place we can have conversations like this where we can say anything and put our points of view out there. And that is internet radio, internet podcasts. They're coming for us, Kevin. How dangerous is it? My fear is, in a couple of years' time less, internet anonymity will be banned. You will have to register. They will have to have your birth cert or your passport so they know exactly who you are. Now that won't matter to you because you've never hidden behind a pseudonym. And neither have I. But they're really coming for these types of forums. Is there anything we can do about it? How worried about it are you? Five minutes we have.

I'm pretty horrified by it, and I'm worried about the future of the world where these systematic big lies rule, and people are hardly able to challenge them because of this ever-worse clampdown on intelligent conversation and questioning official dogmas. And yeah, I'm you know, it's already far beyond what I had imagined back in 2009 when Cass Sunstein, Obama's information czar, wrote his book on conspiracy theories and said that someday it might be necessary to ban conspiracy theories. But in the meantime, what we can do now is to infiltrate conspiracy movements and promote, quote unquote, “beneficial cognitive diversity” in order to, quote unquote, “cripple the purveyors of conspiracy theories.” So this was really all about his fear of 9/11 truth. And Cass Sunstein, I think, was actually ahead of his time. At that time, we all laughed when he said someday they'll ban conspiracy theories. We said they can't do that. The Internet is free. And we all know that it has to be viewpoint neutral. Every platform on the Internet has to be viewpoint neutral. They cannot encourage one opinion versus blocking or dialing down or, God forbid, deplatforming another opinion. That was the consensus of all the people that ran the Internet right up until around 2015 or so.

And that's all changed. The last 10 years have been a time of Orwellian gathering darkness. And maybe the sun will go all the way down and we'll all get arrested if we talk like this in the same way that Sarah Wilkinson was arrested. And Richard Medhurst. And now we've got Pavel Durov being held in Paris and they're shaking him upside down to make the keys to Telegram fall out of his pocket.

It's just insane, Richie. Maybe it was lucky that we started doing this back when we could, because I kind of worry about people who want to take up this podcasting business in the time that we're in now.

And can I just, a final question on this, with seconds to go, what would we do, Kevin? Because if they compel those companies who host our websites, and I think they will eventually, if they compel us to close this down…Where would we go then? Where would Dr. Kevin Barrett go to speak to people Where the hell would I go to do a show like this? Would we be going back to kind of driving around in cars, Kevin, with transistors and doing localised FM radio? How the hell would we fight back against it? It's a fairly deep question with seconds left. Go ahead.

Yeah, it's a great question. I probably shouldn't get into the fact that long ago when I when I launched my truth jihad, which is supposed to be self-effacing humor with a bit of absurdity. But there's a true element: “the best jihad is a word of truth flung in the face of a tyrant.” That's Islamic scripture. But I said, you know, we've got free speech, so I'm going to wage a verbal battle, right? Sigmund Freud said that the inventor of civilization was the first person who hurled an insult instead of a rock. So I'm going to be hurling words instead of hand grenades.

But it might get to the point that we all have to start hurling hand grenades. I hate to say that, but, you know, I'm not going to be crushed. I'm not. And I don't think anybody with any sense of decency and pride is going to allow themselves to be completely crushed by Big Brother. So get ready for violence in the streets if they try that.

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

Dr. E. Michael Jones and I forged our own Catholic-Muslim alliance back in February 2013, when we first met in person at the Hollywoodism conference in Tehran. I had convinced the Iranian organizers to invite Dr. Jones, who has a legitimate claim to being America’s leading Catholic intellectual.

During that conference, on the ride back to Tehran from Qom, E. Michael Jones prophesied a future Catholic-Muslim alliance. I opined that Pope Benedict wasn’t ready for it. Dr. Jones responded: “He won’t be Pope forever.” An hour or so later, as we entered the lobby of our hotel, we were surprised to see big screen TVs interrupting their regular programming with shock headlines: “Pope resigns! First time since 1415!”

Though part of Dr. Jones’ prophecy was realized with uncanny rapidity, we’re still waiting for the new Pope, Francis, to declare an official Catholic-Muslim alliance against the Zionist Antichrist. If I tell Mike “Francis isn’t ready for it” and Mike says “he won’t be Pope forever,” will Francis follow Benedict’s example and quickly resign? It might be worth a try. (From EMJ’s lips to God’s ear!) But since the Zionists and their freemasonic friends, sexual and otherwise, seem to hold sway in the Vatican, I wouldn’t put much faith in the next Pope, whoever he is, declaring an anti-Antichrist alliance.

Although E. Michael Jones and I agree on most things, we disagree on the TQ (Trump Question). A congenital optimist, Mike holds out hope that Trump was, on July 13, saved from an assassin’s bullet by a divine miracle—sparking a change of heart that may, insha’allah, lead Trump to do God’s work. I, on the other hand, am a “Trump pessimist.” While I acknowledge the occasional reality of divine miracles—after all, I studied them while preparing my Ph.D. dissertation on medieval and modern Moroccan miracle stories—I think the July 13 “Trump shooting,” which would indeed have required multiple miracles to have happened as advertised, has a more mundane explanation, like the Medjugorje fake miracles that Dr. Jones has ably debunked. Watch Dr. Jones and I argue about Trump and the “assassination attempt” starting at about 33:30 of the video posted above.

Based on his past record, Donald J. Trump strikes me as pretty much the last person on Earth who will ever participate in an anti-Antichrist alliance. Indeed, as Professor Anthony Hall reminds us, there were reasonably credible reports that, at the behest of his daughter Ivanka and her Kosher Nostra kingpin husband Jared Kushner, Trump converted to the messianic-millenarian Chabad Lubovich sect of Judaism in 2017. That sect is pulling out all the stops to bring on a “Jewish messiah” who will rule the world from a blood sacrifice temple in Jerusalem. That “messiah” would be the person Christians and Muslims call the Antichrist.

Trump’s over-the-top support for the genocide of Gaza burnishes his pro-Antichrist credentials.

My new American Free Press piece pictured above (subscribe to read the whole thing) begins by considering various positive sides of Trump’s campaign, including the participation of RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, before turning to the elephant in the room:

If Trump is fully committed to solving (America’s existential) problems, and turns smart people like Kennedy loose on them, he might wind up on Mount Rushmore. But Trump’s campaign (like RFK Jr.’s rhetoric) is still hobbled by a YUUUUUGE negative: his over-the-top support for Israel.

Trump recently angered veterans when he gave  megadonor Miriam Adelson, a de facto agent of Israel, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Trump put his Zionist foot in his mouth by saying that the civilian Medal of Freedom is “actually better” than the Medal of Honor, which is only given to soldiers who are “either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets, or they’re dead.” Speaking of Miriam Adelson, a hideous crone whose even uglier husband Sheldon ruined the lives of countless gambling-addicted Americans, and was rumored to be an organized crime kingpin and mass murderer, Trump said: “She gets it and she’s a healthy beautiful woman and they’re rated equal but she got the Presidential Medal of Freedom.”

Miriam Adelson has reportedly offered Trump $100 million in return for a promise to greenlight “finishing the job” of the complete genocide of Palestine. That places both of them among the worst war criminals in all of history.

As he solicits colossal sums from mobsters in return for genocide endorsements, Trump continues to promise the Jewish lobby that he will be its biggest-ever slave (like he was during his first term, when he pushed through the “Satan Accords” of “abnormalization” that triggered the current war and genocide). Everywhere he goes, or at least everywhere where there is at least one rich Jew in the audience, Trump blathers about anti-Semitism and the horrors of the Holocaust. On August 17, Trump told Fox and Friends: “If you see what’s happening with Israel and Jewish people right now there has never been a more dangerous time since the Holocaust if you happen to be Jewish in America.” The previous night, at the Jewish megadonor event with Adelson, Trump had gone even further, pledging to give Israel complete control over the entire US government. He said if he wins, “you will have the president,” adding that he would make sure Israel also gained complete control over Congress.

Promising to turn the whole US government over to a foreign power in return for money is the textbook definition of conspiracy to commit treason. Based on his own words, Trump ought to be arrested and charged. Though most high-level politicians of both parties—especially those who allow themselves to be filmed by Mossad agents like Jeffrey Epstein while they rape children—should also be brought up on treason charges, they are usually smart enough not to publicly announce plans to turn over the entire American government to the genocidal state of Israel. Along with treason, Trump should be charged with first-degree stupidity.

Most of the problems Trump and RFK Jr. want to solve stem from the Kosher Nostra’s stranglehold on America. Rather than treat the symptoms, we need to remove the cancer.

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

Rumble link Bitchute link

Ron Unz discusses his latest, “American Pravda: YouTube Censorship and the Curious Case of Candace Owens.” Why are the YouTube censors, who purged my main and later backup channel some time ago (along with other alt-media channels) allowing Candace Owens to say equally controversial things about equally forbidden topics…and reach an audience of millions? Is it because Owens intersperses her courageous exposés of Israel’s genocide and  domination of US media, 9/11 (here and here), World War II revisionism, and even (gasp) Adolf Hitler…with Flat Earthand anti-science? Or maybe they just haven’t gotten around to bothering to nuke her channel yet?

Rough transcript:

Kevin Barrett: This is the second hour of tonight's live podcast of Truth Jihad Radio right here on Revolution.Radio. Revolution.Radio is the home of total free speech on the Internet airwaves. If it's not illegal, you can say it right here on Revolution Radio. And in fact, things that probably are illegal in various countries, such as saying, "hey, man, I support the Palestinian resistance, including Hamas. I support the Lebanese resistance, including Hezbollah. And of course, I support the brave Houthis of Yemen." Apparently, you're not allowed to say that in the UK anymore. But you certainly are allowed to say such things on Revolution.Radio. So please support total free speech by listening to Revolution.Radio.

I'm Kevin Barrett. My Substack is kevinbarrett.substack.com, and I appreciate any subscriptions, paid ones in particular, so I can continue this truth jihad—the all-out struggle for truth, no holds barred, and even including a little bit of goofy and or self-effacing humor now and then just to lighten things up. We were talking about that in the first hour, the importance of lightening things up every now and then.

Well, let's now light things up with some incendiary stuff with Ron Unz, who is really the king of incendiary articles on today's alternative media. And who better than Ron Unz to talk about this crazy crackdown on alternative media that we're seeing right now with everybody of any substance on our alternative wavelength is starting to get purged from YouTube and other platforms.

We just had a bunch of people arrested. Sarah Wilkinson and Richard Medhurst have both been arrested in the UK for the crime of supporting the Palestinian resistance or doing journalism that's at least somewhat sympathetic to the Palestinian resistance. And there are so many examples of this crushing of alternative viewpoints that one doesn't even know where to start.

But I guess a good place to start would be Ron Unz and his new article, American Pravda: YouTube Censorship and the Curious Case of Candace Owens.

Candace Owens, the former conservative mainstream pundit from the...What was it, Ron, you can help me there? When Candace was working with Ben Shapiro, what was it called?

Ron Unz: It's called The Wire, I think.

Kevin Barrett: The Daily Wire, yeah.  So now she's gone completely haywire instead of daily wire. She's talking about the stuff that I talk about on this show. Well, I haven't gotten into flat earth yet, but she's actually mentioned that.

So, so Ron, your analysis of the way this info where war works is really interesting in this article. So maybe you can introduce that.

Ron Unz: Sure. Basically what I did was start off discussing the tremendous technological growth of YouTube, which has permitted voices that otherwise would have disappeared when they were purged from the mainstream media to develop a huge following. For example, almost every day I watch the podcast of Judge Andrew Napolitano, who's accumulated really a large collection of very high ranking, credible mainstream figures: Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Professor John Mearsheimer, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, who had been the chief of staff to Colin Powell, Douglas McGregor—a very wide correction collection of these sorts of people who had been involved in the top levels of American decision making.

And these are the sort of individuals who under another scenario would be probably very close to the top ranks of the American government right now, or advising the government in its national security and foreign policy apparatus, or at the very least, writing op-eds for the New York Times, the Washington Post, being interviewed on cable all the time. And because of their views on Ukraine, on the Israel-Gaza conflict, on those sorts of issues, they've all been totally purged from the American media.

If it were or years ago, they would have disappeared. Nobody would know what any of them felt about these issues. But instead now, I mean, they've developed very large worldwide followings on YouTube. Many times their videos get 50,000, 100,000, 200,000 views, which these days are numbers pretty comparable with a lot of cable TV shows.

YouTube really provides an opportunity for these very important ideas to get out to the broader public in the United States and the world without being filtered through what might be called the controlled media.

Unfortunately, YouTube over the last few years has started to become more and more willing to purge channels and purge individuals. And in fact, just this last week, one thing that prompted my article was that Judge Andrew Napolitano's podcast received a strike under YouTube. Now, I'm not sure exactly why, what the circumstances were, what you know was discussed that was considered improper. But it raises the possibility that these very high ranking individuals and the channel that they frequent will be purged from YouTube, which really is just outrageous.

And you know, one thing I should emphasize is that even though they have non-mainstream views—alternative views on the Ukraine war, on the Israel-Gaza conflict, on the situation with China and the South China Sea—they're very, very mainstream people and none of them ever get into any of the sort of touchy subjects that someone like you or someone like me to some extent really focuses on. There's virtually no discussion of the JFK assassination, nothing on the 9/11 attacks, nothing on World War II. In fact, many of them, most of them probably, seem to have very mainstream views on all those subjects.

So we're talking about basically purging, potentially, top-ranking former members of the establishment for their views that the Ukraine war was probably a mistake and that Israel is really getting away with literal murder in the attack on uh on Gaza. Napolitano received that one strike but his channel came back after a week, and so we'll see whether that's a sign of something more serious. If not, then it might be a one-off. But if people like that can be purged for having such mainstream views, it really represents very much of a totalitarian sort of atmosphere in the media.

So anyway that was the basis of the article. And I emphasized the purges of YouTube that developed over the last probably six or seven or eight years, that mostly started probably around the unexpected victory of Donald Trump. A lot of it was justified through the ridiculous Russiagate hoax. Claims were made that all of these channels, all of these left-wingers, right-wingers, and libertarians, were actually in the pay of Russia, which is utterly ridiculous.

But basically what's happened is more and more of these alternative channels, certainly including your own, have been purged over the years. And it's a very disheartening situation when you see such prominent figures censored. One example I cited was the case of David Irving's videos. David Irving probably ranks, with the possible exception of Arnold Toynbee, as the most internationally successful British historian of the last 100 years. His books have sold in the millions. And I think it was about five or six years ago that all of his lectures, his riveting lectures on YouTube about the Second World War, were purged off YouTube. They're no longer available on that platform. You can still find them here or there. But YouTube has such a larger reach than any of these other video platforms. It really is a disaster for somebody if they're removed from YouTube.

Anyway, a very strange situation recently developed. There's a black right wing pundit named Candace Owens, who, to be honest, I had barely heard of until a few months ago. I vaguely knew she was out there spouting very typical right wing views on a whole range of different issues. And then, apparently, the horrifying events in Gaza—the Israeli bombardment of churches, the massacre of civilian populations—really made an impression on her. And so she ended up tweeting out on her account some implied support for a truce, and statements sort of hinting as to the fact that pro-Israel donor money was the reason that more people were not taking that same position.

That got her into a lot of trouble with Ben Shapiro and some of the other pro-Israel right wingers on her outlet. And after a certain amount of controversy, she was fired. And then she ended up, naturally enough, starting her own YouTube channel.

And what really surprised me was that some of the things she started discussing on that channel were really very controversial things: Adolf Hitler, the truth about the second world war, who was involved in the 9/11 attacks—strong statements of very clear evidence of Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attacks...

Kevin Barrett: She's been stealing my stuff!

Ron Unz: I know. And at least very strong Israeli foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Now as I mentioned in my article, the sort of things she's discussing on either the Second World War or on the 9/11 attacks probably represent about 2 percent or 3 percent of what people who have really looked into those issues know about them. But that's two or three percent more than almost any Americans know.

Her channel's huge. It's probably six or seven times larger than Andrew Napolitano's channel, despite all the esteemed individuals he has on it. I think she has something like 2.3 or 2.4 million subscribers, and 5.5 million followers on Twitter. Most of her videos get a half million or sometimes a million views. And some of those videos tread into issues that you normally don't see on YouTube these days. You saw them maybe a few years ago before the purges began, but then basically all the people discussing them were purged.

So it just seemed very strange to me why she would still be on YouTube. There are a lot of people on YouTube who've barely discussed 5% of the controversial things she discussed and they've been purged.

Because she discusses those sorts of controversial things she obviously builds up very quickly a huge subscriber base. And in fact one thing that surprised me is one of the biggest left-liberal channels on YouTube is Amy Goodman's Democracy Now. Over 10 or 12 years it's built up 2.2 or 2.3 million subscribers. And from almost a standing start, Candace Owens has now passed it. She has more subscribers than Democracy Now!, which really is remarkable.

Kevin Barrett: Well, she's better looking than Amy Goodman.

Ron Unz: Yeah. So one thing that I really wondered about is why is she still on YouTube? Why hasn't she been purged yet? The fact that she hasn't been purged from Twitter yet isn't really all that surprising because Elon Musk is much more open these days than probably would have been the case a few years ago.

When I first came across her, when people started touting her, I really wasn't very impressed. Because, again, the things she was discussing about 9/11 and World War II are things that anybody who's looked into the stuff certainly knows about. And some of the other things that she discussed really didn't impress me that much.

And also, when I checked, I found out she basically is a college dropout who attended a very mediocre school and then failed to graduate. So she's not somebody whose views I would tremendously respect on these issues. But I ended up watching some videos. And the things she was saying about the Second World War and about 9/11 included very solid points. She pointed to the fact that five Mossad agents were caught red-handed celebrating the successful attacks. They were arrested by the FBI, interrogated for more than two months, supposedly failed all the lie detector tests they were given, and then suddenly under massive political pressure, deported back to Israel.

And she also mentioned the fact that that undamaged hijacker passport had allegedly been found on the streets of New York after everything else in the plane was destroyed. Those are the sorts of things that would certainly raise doubts about the official story in the minds of most sensible people, and certainly in the minds of her sort of young celebrity oriented audience. I'm sure almost none of them had ever heard of it before.

I ended up doing was just watching about a dozen of her videos. And, I'm not saying I know the reason that she's still on YouTube, but at least I have one plausible scenario. And that's that a lot of the subjects he discusses are very, very controversial, but very controversial in a very doubtful sort of way. For example, one of the videos is entitled "Satanism in the space program" or something like that. She basically argues that the NASA space program is heavily based upon or involved in Satanism, worship of Satan, which really is ridiculous.

She points to the absolutely undeniable fact that one of the early rocket engineers involved in NASA certainly was somebody involved in the occult and maybe Satan worship and something like that. But I mean, we're talking about one individual out of hundreds.

Kevin Barrett: Jack Parsons, I believe.

Ron Unz: To be honest, I'd never even heard of him before. You can always find one or two eccentric individuals in any organization. But to use that to claim that the space program was heavily involved in Satanism seems three or four steps too extreme.

Another thing in another one of her videos, she basically claimed that, for various reasons—she's naturally an extreme anti-vaxxer and everything like that—she actually said that she'd come to reject all of modern science. And because she rejected all of modern science she really wasn't convinced whether the Earth was flat or whether it was round.

Kevin Barrett: Let me step in there. Are you sure that's an accurate depiction of what she said? Because when I looked at the hit pieces—I didn't actually listen to her talk—but the hit pieces that described what she said, said that she kind of lost her faith in science. The way I would interpret that is that she is opposing scientism, which is a belief system that raises scientific procedures and knowledge to the status of the highest possible value in the way that theism looks at God. That, I assume, is what she meant. I don't think she meant that she was rejecting all scientific inquiry. At least I hope not.

Ron Unz: It really sounded like she basically said that science was simply a religion and she rejected it. As an example of her rejection she said—while she wouldn't say that she's a flat earther, she also wouldn't say that she's a round earther.

Kevin Barrett: Yeah, that was the line that they got her with.

Ron Unz: Right. And so I mean the whole thing is when somebody says that you know they're not convinced that the earth is round, that's sort of another way of saying that they think at least it's possible that the Earth is flat.

Kevin BarretT: You could interpret it, though, as, "OK, I'm not a flat earther. I'm not a round earther. That is, I'm not just a believer in what somebody tells me. I am actually going to think critically and look into it, which actually means that she would be following the scientific method better than people who just accept that the Earth is round because they've heard it from credible scientific voices, meaning that they're actually just falling for the fallacy of authority. Maybe it's not a fallacy in this case, but often simply believing what authoritative sources tell you is fallacious. So, you can interpret it either way, really, can't you?

Ron Unz: Right. But I think for any sensible person in a public statement, a controversial sensible person, to say that they're absolutely not a round Earther, and mentioning Flat Earth as another theory out there without dismissing it, I think it's certainly putting themselves in a very vulnerable position.

And, aside from that, apparently...I didn't watch it, but in one of her other videos, apparently she rejects the notion that men never went to the moon or that there was any moon landing, which I know you might have certain views on...

Kevin Barrett: Well, yeah, I'm actually open to that one, having looked at that film, American Moon. I would recommend that, because it does, to me, look like there was some kind of chicanery involved, at least with the photographs.

Ron Unz: I mean, that's certainly possible, but again, the whole thing about it is, given so many issues that she was raising...I watched a bunch of her videos,

and a lot of them are sort of a mishmash of controversial issues. She talks about and denounces devil worship. She apparently believes that demons or Satanism are heavily involved in aspects of our society right now. I got the sense that she believes the demons are real and everything like that. If you're a committed Christian, I suppose believing the demons are real is not an unreasonable position to take. And Muslims too, right?

Kevin Barrett: In fact, the belief in the existence of jinn, entities that could be bad and demonic or they could be benign or neutral, is actually one of the tenets of the faith.

Ron Unz: Exactly. But, given the number of these, seemingly odd beliefs or at least controversial beliefs she raised in her different videos...And there were a whole bunch of them. Like I said, I watched probably a dozen of her videos, including the three or four that dealt with 9/11 or World War II issues, and did a pretty good job of it. In fact, one of the things she did was refer to a one-hour documentary produced and distributed by the BBC a few years ago on the aftermath of the Second World War, which I hadn't even been aware of. And I watched it. It was a very good documentary.

The problem is when you mix together those sorts of issues which are controversial enough, in other words 9/11 being a conspiracy probably involving or at least she strongly hinted that it involved Israel and Mossad and pro-israel activists. On the Second World War, I think the name of her video was something like "we've been totally lied to about everything regarding the Second World War, everything you know about the second world war is a lie." Those are obviously very, very strong statements to make on controversial issues. And then to mix them together with other videos about demons, the moon landing being a hoax, emphasizing the fact that she doesn't necessarily believe that the world is round, all these other things, to some extent may very much hurt the case of those who have controversial views on 9/11 and the Second World War, by mixing them together with other issues to produce such a collection of controversial ideas that I think most sort of casual observers would just reject the whole of them.

For example, there are individuals who have sometimes very, very controversial views on certain subjects.

But for sensible reasons, keep those views quiet when they're discussing other views that are sort of the central part of the topic that they're interested in promoting.

And Kevin, the point you made is a perfect one. I've never even been aware that because of your religious background, you believed in demons or that sort of thing. As you say, most religious Muslims do. Can you imagine a situation: you do a lot of shows on 9/11, JFK, the Second World War, controversial things like that. Imagine if most of your shows constantly talked about demons. Now, you may believe in demons, but I think you would admit that constantly discussing demons and demonology on most of your shows would probably not be the wisest political strategy or ideological strategy to follow.

Kevin Barrett: It's interesting you bring this up, because the trajectory I've followed since I became known as "that 9/11 truth professor" actually may have wandered a little too far in the direction that you're critiquing regarding Candace Owens. Because when I started in 2004 but then I hit the limelight in 2006 and my 15 minutes of fame went on for six months, because the neocons were trying to get me fired from the university and the university couldn't find a reason to fire me, so they just kept hammering at me, and I kept baiting them. So I did get a lot of media exposure for those six six months. And at that time, I did try to come across as reasonable and relatively mainstream. One of America's supposedly top PR people called me up, somehow got my number and said, "the more controversial your message, the more mainstream your appearance and style should be." And so I took that to heart for a while.

And then as time went on and I ended up doing these alternative podcasts and publishing and so on, I realized that it seemed to me, well, number one, the 9/11 issue leads to many other issues, just like what you've discovered in your American Pravda series. So partly to not get bored and partly to keep my audience from getting bored, I did start exploring other topics. And some of them got weird. For instance, I invited John Lear on my show. John Lear is the son of the man who invented the Learjet. And at the time, he was one of the, if not the most, highly qualified pilots on Earth. He had this incredible list of qualifications for piloting virtually every aircraft that exists—a very, very highly qualified guy, engineering background and so on. And he came on my show and said that we have secret bases on the dark side of the moon and anti-gravity technology.

And that was kind of news to me. And so I didn't push back as hard as I probably should have. And the next thing, you know, I was being attacked by the more conservative buttoned-down people in the 9/11 truth movement. I was actually kicked off my main platform at the time, 911blogger.com. Because the head of that operation, some anonymous individual, was so angry that I had allowed John Lear to say those things on my show, that I got de-platformed from the other side.

And so since then I've been exploring—basically what I've been trying to do is basically what you do at your American Pravda series only I have to admit, you've done it in a more meticulous, scholarly and well-organized way. But I've been doing it in a sort of a slightly more slipshod, haphazard way, trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. But I've looked at more chaff, I think, maybe than you have. And I'm also willing to get into the "religious" dimension of things.

And regarding these issues like, do demons exist? You have to make a distinction between the religious dogma that the jinn exist in mainstream Islam, and the empirical evidence that consciousness not embodied in the nervous systems of living bodies is quite possible. And we find that in psi research, the evidence for reincarnation—I was just discussing with Josh Mitteldorf on the show the other day—there's actually very strong evidence for something very much like reincarnation: Four year olds that have knowledge of languages they couldn't possibly have learned and memories of things that they couldn't possibly know and things like that. So anyway, there's all kinds of weird stuff like that that you haven't explored yet. And maybe if you did, you wouldn't believe it. Or maybe you would. I don't know. There are a number of those kinds of topics where you and I probably have very different views. But anyway, I just look at all that stuff. But I try to stick with the most important stuff that is best documented that if people could figure this out, it would really make a difference. Things like 9/11 for example.

But this other stuff...So maybe maybe I've actually caused a certain amount of damage to my 9/11 mission by going off into some of these other areas. Anyway, your article did make me reflect on that.

Ron Unz: Sure, sure. The point I really was getting into, though,is that, if you just go through a random selection of Candace Owens videos... And by the way, you know, most of the videos, for example, have about 10 or 12 minutes of the main topic. And then the rest is sort of bizarre celebrity junk scandals: which celebrities are transgender, things like that. That gets into the single biggest thing that Candace Owens has been identified with. And that's the claim that the first lady of France is a man, which was one of the first things I heard about her when she came up on one of my common threads.

And it just seemed so outlandish...when I then checked and found out that she'd attended a mediocre college and failed to graduate, I said, well, she's probably just an idiot and her stuff is just nonsense. And when I actually went and looked at those videos on 9/11 or in the Second World War, it was really very solid stuff. But unfortunately she's done many, many more videos on the notion that the first lady of France is a man. In one of her tweets she said explicitly that she would stake her entire reputation on the first lady of France being a man, which is a very, very strong statement to make.

And so given the fact that I really haven't paid any attention to first lady of France...I know her name. I've seen her name in the paper a couple of times. And you know the story of how she was a teacher. She was the 40 year old teacher of Macron and they had an affair while he was a teenager and then they married. It is very odd that she's 25 years older than he. That's really all I knew about her.

So, given Candace Owens' statement that she would stake her entire reputation on it, I became curious. I watched a couple of her videos, thinking that she might have massive evidence behind it. And there really seemed virtually nothing at all. And then I contacted Laurent Guyénot, who's a sort of conspiracy-oriented person in France, to ask him what he thought about it. He thought the whole thing was totally crazy, that it was just this crazy thing that had taken over the right-wingers in France.

And basically, as far as I can tell, Candace Owens' main piece of evidence was that there was a photograph showing, allegedly, one of Mrs. Macron's brothers looked a lot like Mrs. Macron. Owens was saying it was actually the brother who had a sex change operation. Now, you know, the truth is, brothers and sisters sometimes do resemble each other. If that's one of the strongest pieces of evidence that's actually the brother, that's sort of ridiculous.

And then the other claim was that basically there was absolutely no record of Mrs. Macron's existence for the first years of her life. But when I checked the newspapers that Candace Owens had apparently cited as sort of her entree into the issue, they basically said that Mrs. Macron's birth had been recorded in a provincial newspaper, and mentioned that she was born into a reasonably prominent family. And I think her marriage had been recorded at the age of 22. She had three children and one of her children was quoted in the newspapers denouncing these crazy lunatics that are saying that their mother is a man.

Another thing I saw: One other recent piece that Candace Owens had pointed to, there's some photograph of Mrs. Macron, I think in her 20s, allegedly. The claim made is it's a fake photograph because she's wearing a hat that would not be worn in that sunny condition. Now it seemed like just an ordinary hat to me. And to say basically that that photograph is obviously fake because nobody would wear a hat on that particular sort of boat, on that yacht. That's really ridiculous.

So, from my point of view, if you're making extraordinary claims, you need to provide extraordinary evidence. And to claim that the First Lady of France, the purported mother of three adult children, is actually a man who had a sex change operation, is an extremely extraordinary claim. And when I found out, there was basically no evidence for it, and that Candace Owens had staked her entire reputation on that theory and she's now apparently been the leading worldwide proponent of the theory, where all the people in France mention her as being the main person in the world promoting that theory...That raised all sorts of issues in my mind, along with this other stuff about Satanism and demons and the Earth possibly being flat. Apparently she's also said she doesn't believe in the existence of dinosaurs. She doesn't think that they ever existed, or something like that.

So it seems to me, in my mind, that raised at least one scenario of why she's still on YouTube. And that's that raising all these other issues and mixing them together with 9/11 conspiracy theories and a different view of what really happened during the Second World War might be viewed by the ADL or organizations like that as an ideal way of tainting 9/11, of tainting the Second World War, of tainting all these other things. Because she's getting hundreds of thousands of views for her videos. You could argue that she's now becoming, at least on the video platform, the world's leading 9/11 truther, the world's leading World War II revisionist. And if she has staked her entire reputation on the First Lady of France being a man and if that turns out not to be correct, that I think could do very serious damage to these ideas.

If you keep her on YouTube and her audience grows and she becomes, by a very wide margin, the main proponent of all of these controversial ideas,  I think you may be doing a tremendous amount of damage to the ideas. You could say that the opposition, the sort of mainstream establishment, the ADL and groups like that—

they control the megaphone. And so they can go around saying that the number one supporter of 9/11 truth these days is somebody who believes in all these other ridiculous things. They could basically say that she believes the earth is flat. Now, that's probably, just as you were pointing out, not a fair characterization of her views. But I think it's close enough to being fair that it really does a tremendous amount of damage.

Kevin Barrett: It's close enough for the ADL, that's for sure.

Ron Unz: Yeah, exactly, exactly. It's not that they're making it up from whole cloth. They're taking statements, maybe somewhat exaggerating them or sort of spinning them in a certain way. But I think it's a bad idea for people who believe in 9/11 truth to make statements like that.

I don't think that there's any likelihood that Candace Owens is somebody who might be called controlled opposition. I don't think the ADL is telling her what to say. I don't think any of these groups are sort of controlling her or what she spouts off on her YouTube channel. But I do think there's another concept that I brought up, which is promoted opposition. In other words, I do think it's very possible that the ADL and some of these organizations have done everything they can to keep her on YouTube, to promote her, to make her as prominent as possible, with the idea that if these ideas—9/11, the Second World War, the JFK assassination—are sufficiently in circulation, that people hear about them,

there has to be one person who's the most prominent figure associated with them.

And I think the ADL sat down and thought about it a little bit and decided,

well, Candace Owens might be the best person they'd get to be the number one.

Kevin Barrett: But why not Kevin Barrett? I could stake my entire reputation on Kamala Harris being a man. "Come on guys, promote my videos!"

Ron Unz: To be honest, I'd always assumed this Mrs. Macron being a man was just a joke. And it was only probably a few weeks ago that I really found out...there are commenters on my website who are a hundred percent convinced of it.

So Candace Owens has a sufficiently large platform that individuals who may not look into the issue that carefully or may sort of have health problems like Alan Sabrosky, may be taken in by that because they agree with Candace Owens on 9/11.

Think about it. You have all of these conspiracy activists out there, many of whom may be more prone to sort of believing in certain controversial things than the average person, maybe even the average sensible person. They come across Candace Owens on YouTube. She has millions of viewers, she has millions of subscribers. She has many millions of YouTube (and Twitter) followers. Her YouTube videos get hundreds of thousands of views, and the ones on 9/11 really seem quite good to me. So somebody watches her 9/11 videos, somebody who's leaning towards 9/11 truth. And they say, my God, Candace Owens said such sensible things. She brought up such sensible ideas. And then they naturally look at a few of her other videos. And they become convinced that Mrs. Macron is a man, that our space program was founded on Satanism, all those sorts of things. And then they go around and discredit themselves. And they promote those things to their friends.

Kevin Barrett: "Beneficial cognitive diversity."

Ron Unz: Exactly. So groups like the ADL and similar activist elements decide that there has to be one person out there who's the leading promoter of 9/11 truth, of a different view of the Second World War, things like that. They couldn't ask for a better possibility than Candace Owens. If Candace Owens weren't there, it might be somebody with much more mundane views on those other issues. And so promoting or at least protecting Candace Owens' YouTube channel might very well be a decision that they made.

And the fact is that Candace Owens has a very spotty record in other ways. She denounced Donald Trump, then she became a leading supporter of Donald Trump. She's basically somebody who dropped out of a very mediocre college. From what some people say, she doesn't really come across as all that smart. So if you're looking for the number one 9/11 truther on the Internet, probably some of this group decided, if it isn't Candace Owens, it might be somebody worse from their point of view.

Kevin Barrett: It used to be Alex Jones.

Ron Unz: Yeah, exactly. And Alex Jones has been kicked over the internet. I'm not even sure if Alex Jones ever made claims about Satanism being behind the space program or,

Kevin Barrett: He did occasionally say some some goofy sounding stuff. But I think the ratio of of strong to goofy maybe was a little better with Alex. But Alex Jones never went after the Zionists and World War Two and so on the way Candace does.

Ron Unz: Exactly, exactly. In fact, that's a very interesting thing. Did Alex Jones ever get into that stuff about Michelle Obama being a man?

Kevin Barrett: He probably has had guests on talking about that kind of thing. I think what's going on there, Ron, is that people largely believe what they want to believe, and there's an attraction to believing this type of anecdote, because we look around us and we see all of this transgender lunacy, and then we see that there are these elites that seem to be in cahoots with a movement to promote this sort of lunacy for their own reasons. And so when we hear a story like (Macron's or Obama's wife is a man) it sort of reinforces our beliefs. It's like a little mythical anecdote that illustrates our beliefs, and we want to endorse it.

I did a folklore minor for my Ph.D., and looked at rumors and legends and conspiracy theories. And there's a book called I Heard It Through the Grapevine by an African-American female scholar who looked at rumors in the black community. And she found a whole lot of these rumors like "Church's fried chicken makes you sterile." Where does that come from? It's because the black community is a little bit paranoid based on things like the Tuskegee syphilis experiments and things like that. So their paranoia—and just because they're paranoid doesn't mean somebody hasn't at times been out to get them—so they want to believe this type of thing. And here comes this colorful anecdote about Church's fried chicken, and they gravitate towards it. And likewise with all of the gender lunacy around us, these stories about Michelle Obama being Big Mike and Macron's alleged husband or wife or whatever, they become kind of attractive ways of summarizing our sense of how crazy the world is and how a certain kind of elite is complicit in making it that crazy.

Ron Unz: Sure. By the way, the Mrs. Macron stuff, I think, clearly is based on the Michelle Obama stuff. Since it was so widespread in American right wing fringe circles, I think basically the right wing circles in France got the same idea. But my suspicion is that some of these things could actually be promoted as sort of Cass Sunstein type diversionary plots. For example, I remember back when Obama was running for the presidency, there were all these crazy stories going around that he was actually a secret closeted gay, that he was a drug user,that he was smoking crack. I always assumed it was total nonsense. And I think it was around that time that the "big Mike" or "Michelle Obama being a man" stories also got into circulation. I thought, oh, that's even crazier. And then it was only maybe six months or a year ago that I actually saw one of the people on Tucker Carlson's Twitter podcast. He was interviewed for an hour basically saying that he was involved with Obama as a male prostitute. And he came across as quite credible. So I then spent a few days really reading through it, checking all the stuff. And I think there's like an 80 or 85 percent chance that those stories were actually true.

Kevin Barrett: Once again, Ron, it took it took you over 10 years to catch up with me.

Ron Unz: Exactly, exactly, exactly. But the thing is: Imagine, for example, you're the Obama people and you want to kill off those stories, kill off those rumors. Basically, the guy swore an affidavit. He held a press conference at the Press Club in D.C. We're talking about somebody willing to speak on the record.

Kevin Barrett: Was that Larry Sinclair?

Ron Unz: That name sounds familiar. To be honest, I don't remember his name offhand, but that name sounds very familiar. It could have been him. So, we're talking about a situation where you want to destroy that sort of story. It seems to me circulating a wild rumor that Michelle Obama is actually a transgender man would be a great way of doing it, because it's even more of an exciting story. It connects to the other one and it circulates in the same sort of right wing fringe community. And, you know, you produce maybe a few doctored photos or something like that. I mean, it's very easy to do. And once it takes off, it totally destroys that other story, which I think is probably true. It completely takes over it since it's a more exciting story. It dominates the discussion. It pushes the other one out of the limelight and it utterly destroys the credibility of the people promoting it.

So in the same way, there are a lot of suspicions that Emmanuel Macron also might be a closeted homosexual. I haven't really looked into it. But there are all these sort of rumors or suspicions circulating. And certainly the fact that he married a woman 25 years older than he was is—that's not something that ordinary people...

Kevin Barrett: It's usually the other way around. The guy marries the woman who's 25 years younger.

Ron Unz: Yeah, exactly, exactly. So, there's something...quite odd going on. So if you're somebody in his circle and you want to destroy those rumors...It's undeniable that he basically was a teenager and he had an affair with a 40-year-old teacher of his, which in the United States normally means you go to prison for something like that. So we're talking about a gigantic scandal that's part of the official narrative of Macron's background. So the way you distract people away from it is to basically leak the story that Mrs. Macron is a man. And you destroy the credibility of the people circulating it. And you completely divert them onto this other ridiculous thing where basically they go around saying it's a shocking, shocking fact that Mrs. Macron's brother resembles her. Which just shows how ridiculous all these people are.

So, I have no evidence for it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were a clever Cass Sunstein type strategy, just like the Michelle Obama rumor might have been a strategy along those lines in the United States. We basically take something that might be true, but involves a shocking type of incident, a shocking type element of somebody's history. And you destroy it in public by diverting attention to something many times more shocking that happens to be probably ridiculous.

Kevin Barrett: Some people would say that that kind of scenario might be going on with some of the more exotic theories around 9/11.

Ron Unz: Exactly. I think that's very likely right.

Kevin Barrett: And it also reminds me of what happened to the George W. Bush cocaine story. There was a journalist named Jim Hatfield who was fed information about how George W. Bush was busted for cocaine and thrown out of the Civil Air Patrol or Air Force or whatever he was in. And they gave that to Hatfield because Hatfield actually had a murder conviction. Karl Rove was the key source who leaked that to Hatfield, and Hatfield published the book and got a 60 Minutes interview. And he thought that he'd hit the big time, but he got on 60 Minutes and all they wanted to talk about was his murder conviction. And from that moment on, the whole story of the Bush cocaine thing was toxic and none of the media would cover it.

Ron Unz: And 60 Minutes itself was mousetrapped in exactly the same way with Dan Rather. They were fed those fake documents about Bush's time in the Civil Air Patrol. The story itself was almost certainly true, but the documents were faked by the Bush people and fed to 60 Minutes through one or two intermediaries so that the 60 Minutes people believed it was true. They broadcasted it, and they were all fired. Dan rather lost his career over it, and it destroyed the story in the minds of the public.

So, I mean, those seem exactly the sort of clever strategies that experienced political consultants can certainly use. I'm not saying that Candace Owens is in any way deliberately promoting this Mrs. Macron story (for nefarious reasons). But I think she probably is what they call a useful idiot who people are deliberately keeping in the public eye, and doing their best to make the leading 9/11 truther on the internet. Would you say she probably has the biggest internet platform for 9/11 truth right now?

Kevin Barrett: I think so. I can't think of anybody remotely close, really. I don't know where Alex Jones is now (in terms of audience size).

Ron Unz: And it's exactly the same thing with the Second World War. And also remember, she's just starting her YouTube platform. Who knows what other things she might get into in the near future? And some of these groups could feed her very juicy material that would even be more outrageous than what she has said so far. And all that would basically taint 9/11, World War II and many of these other issues in the minds of many people.

In many ways, she's sort of the anti-Jeffrey Sachs. A couple of months ago, Jeffrey Sachs declared on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show that he'd become convinced that JFK was killed by a conspiracy involving the CIA. That's something that people have been following the issue have suspected or known for decades. But for somebody of that extremely high mainstream establishment rank to say it, that's an incredibly important step forward. Sachs was the one who broke the Nord Stream pipeline story a year or two before Seymour Hersh came out with his expose. Jeffrey Sachs basically has taken all these very strong positions on Ukraine and other issues. And he's somebody with extremely strong mainstream credibility.

So, if somebody hears about issues involving the Second World War or 9/11 or JFK from someone like Jeffrey Sachs or John Mearsheimer or even just mainstream academics, solid academics, that has tremendous credibility. But when they hear about it from somebody who's best known as being the world's leading advocate of Mrs. Macron being a man, that has exactly the opposite impact.

Kevin Barrett: So what can we do about this?

Ron Unz: That's difficult. I was about to say that's why, for example, David Irving's lectures on the Second World War were all purged from YouTube, while Candace Owen's statements about the Second World War, along roughly the same lines while covering one percent of the ground, remain on YouTube, and why I doubt that she's going to be purged. If anything, the more and more outrageous things she says about all sorts of issues, outrageous in a negative way,

the more likely it is that the ADO will do their best to keep her up on YouTube.

Kevin Barrett: So maybe what we need to do is to somehow infiltrate Candace's circle and give her good advice instead of bad advice and kind of whisper into her ear, "hey, back off on that Mr. Macron thing, and maybe take it easy on the Satanism unless you have good evidence," and stuff like that. So how are we gonna do that? Do we have any volunteers for somehow intercepting her somewhere and being her friend? Is she already married? I'm sure there are a lot of guys who wouldn't mind a date with her.

Ron Unz: Yeah, she's actually married apparently to some very wealthy British guy

Kevin Barrett: Oh, well, so much for that idea.

Ron Unz: When this controversy came up, people said it was sort of a very strange thing with him. It's like he decided to marry her within days of meeting her or something like that. I think what may have happened, is she was very active in the sort of right wing conservative circles, and he might have been drawn into that circle. And, you know, when you look at it, there aren't that many reasonably attractive young women of that age who have that sort of prominence in right wing circles. So you know that might have been why he apparently—I think he inherited some British title and some British fortune or something like that. I don't know the details. I don't even remember his name.

So I guess she'll continue to say more and more outlandish things until either finally she is kicked off Youtube or people stop paying that much attention. Even, for example, Alex Jones went over the line to the point where people sued him and he was finally kicked off YouTube.

Kevin Barrett: Well, I don't know if it's just that he went over the line. I think that there was a concocted decision to go after him on that basis. And I wouldn't even be surprised if the whole Sandy Hook thing were not, if not concocted from whole cloth, at least spun in such a way as to set bait for people like Alex Jones precisely to do that to him later.

Ron Unz: Sure, that's very possible. I think the issue with him is he had such a powerful media platform and he was such a strong supporter of Donald Trump, the establishment that wanted to get rid of Trump and get rid of Trump's biggest supporters felt that regardless of everything else, they had to destroy Alex Jones. I don't know how many YouTube subscribers he had, but I think he had a bigger platform than most of the TV networks. So it was the same sort of thing as Fox News being forced to basically dump Tucker Carlson, even though Tucker Carlson was Fox News' biggest star. He was the biggest star on TV, and he was purged because he was considered a threat to the establishment. I'd be very surprised if Candace Owens ever became viewed as that sort of threat.

Kevin Barrett: We're going to probably have to leave it there and find out in the future, because I believe we hear the bumper music in the background. And you very well could be right. I guess time will tell. We'll see what happens with the career of the curious Candace Owens, or rather the curious career of Candace Owens. Actually, it's The Curious case of Candace Owens. That's the name of the article by Ron Unz at U-N-Z.com. Thank you, Ron. It was great talking to you.

Ron Unz: Thank you.

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

Yuri Bezmenov of the How to Subvert Subversion Substack discusses…well, subverting subversion. What’s that about? And who is Yuri? Well…”Yuri” nom-de-plumed himself after the famous “Russian subversive.” He explains:

1983 was the year before the real Yuri Bezmenov gave his famous speech about ideological subversion. It was also the year that Yuri Sr. arrived in America. Many immigrants who came in the 80s lament how much the country has deteriorated since then. I recently bought a copy LIFE Magazine’s 1983 Year in Review at a garage sale. The stories and advertising were captivating, aspirational, and beautiful. They reflected a bold, confident nation. Since then, many brands and images have been “reimagined” with demoralization and subversion. What were your memories of 1983? Who wouldn’t want to go back to this vibe?

I wouldn’t mind going back to a 1983 vibe. Speaking of that era…on the plane back to Morocco, after a three-week visit to the US, I watched an extraordinary movie set in the late 70’s and early ’80s, The Iron Claw, which I hope to review at some point…

Extract from this interview:

“I started the Substack called How to Subvert Subversion about two and a half years ago. And it was a tribute to the original Yuri Bezmenov, who you mentioned was a KGB spy who then defected to Canada and the US, and then in 1984 gave his famous speech outlining the steps of ideological subversion. He talked about demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and then normalization, where you take an all-powerful empire like the United States in 1984 and you weaken it from within to the point where it collapses in on itself. Instead of the James Bond hot wars and all those Hollywood type of scenes, you've essentially subverted the citizens to accept a communist or anarcho-tyranny type of rule.

“So that's a quick background on him. And then with my substack, I try to talk about those themes, essentially viewing the world as it is now through his lens. What would he say today? And I'm also coming from a place where I have been inside the bowels of many of these demoralized institutions. I went to a demoralized Ivy League school, as I like to call it. I have worked for some of these corporations, and I've also lived in a deep blue city for a while. So I've been in those conversations i've been in the rooms where you see the the leftist commissars say these absurd things. Now we're reaping what they've sowed, and all the the bad ideas the bad policies are having a direct impact every day.”

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

Press TV: Nearly a dozen Palestinians are killed in the West Bank as the Israeli regime launches a major military offensive in several cities across the occupied territories.

Joining us on this edition of the News Review, we have Palestinian scientist and author Mazin Qumsiyeh joining us from Bethlehem, and also we have Editor of Veterans today, Mr. Kevin Barrett, joining us from Saidiya, Morocco. Gentlemen, welcome to the program. Let's start off with Mr. Qumsiyeh in Bethlehem. Sir, please give us your assessment of this wave of Israeli aggression, provocations, and crimes that we've been seeing increasing over the past days.

Mazin Qumsiyeh: But of course, ever since the Gaza genocide started in late October, the aggression in the West Bank is increasing as well. Indeed, what we observe is in the past months or so we had over 653 Palestinians killed in the West Bank, and about 5400 who were injured. This seems to be accelerating, because as you pointed out 11 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank in the past hours including six in Janine and five in the Tubas area. So the israeli military is accelerating its actions, especially in and around refugee camps in the north of the West Bank. And as usual it will expand to other parts of the West Bank, as (when it) started in the north of the West Bank and then it expanded to the south of the West Bank. So my prediction is that more violence will be done towards the Palestinians by both the soldiers and the settlers. Already settlers are killing also Palestinians and attacking them. I even have friends of mine who were attacked by settler gangs basically doing pogroms in places like Jit and other areas. This is all done with the blessings of the Israeli government, of course, and its military, which is part and parcel of this apartheid regime. So in the West Bank, we're catching up with Gaza, in terms of numbers slowly beginning to increase.

Mr. Kevin Barrett, many observers believe that the settler violence that is going on parallel to the Israeli occupation forces' violence against Palestinians is part of a greater plan to eliminate the Palestinians, and it has been intensified on purpose. Also, Islamic Jihad believes Israel's large-scale military campaign that we're seeing now is part of the regime's plans to tighten control over-occupied Al-Quds and also the holy Al-Aqsa Mosque. Do you see it in that light as well?

Kevin Barrett: Yes, I agree completely. And I also just wanted to mention that it's a great honor to appear in the same show with Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh  He's a hero of mine, and everybody should try to get on his email list, one of the most informative sources for what's really going on in occupied Palestine.

So the settler violence is portrayed in the Western media as though it's somehow different from the official Israeli government violence. But even now, the Western media is having to admit that the crazed, fanatical, messianic-millenarian settlers, who make no bones about the fact that what they're trying to do is force their messiah to come by  ramping up these abominations in the Holy Land, believing that horrific violence is the way to force their Messiah to come—who they believe will be a world conqueror who will subjugate all of the other nations to the Jews, and every Jew will have a couple of thousand slaves, and this so-called Messiah will rule the world from a “rebuilt” blood-sacrifice temple which will supposedly replace the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the oldest and greatest Islamic architectural monument on earth.

So these people are trying to create an apocalyptic war. And their current phase of that war is the genocide of all of the people of Palestine. And the settlers are straightforward about this. What I just described sounds crazy, but if you talk to them, they will basically endorse it and say, “yeah, that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to bring back the Messiah by getting rid of the Palestinians, by killing them and driving the rest out.”

The Israeli government can't quite bring itself to admit that, or historically it hasn't, but it's starting to now with people like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in Netanyahu's cabinet. They're also pretty straightforward about the fact that their project is the extermination of the people of Palestine. That is genocide. They're open about their genocidal intent, which means, of course, that they should be in the Hague, not in occupied Palestine. And even Netanyahu has devoted his whole life to this project, but his father was a Princeton professor who taught him how to be a little bit subtle about it.

So Netanyahu doesn't come right out and explain that what he's trying to do is conquer the world, subjugate all non-Jews, and set up a global dictatorship in Jerusalem. But that's the project that he's been groomed for for his entire life by his Princeton professor father.

So what we're seeing here is not just some kind of random violence or even normal settler colonialism. What we're seeing is the result of a long-term, centuries-old plan for a messianic military conquest and global dictatorship. And the fanatics who are open about saying this are coming out, taking their masks off, and the whole world is starting to see it.

Mr. Mazin Qumsiyeh  Islamic Jihad has warned the Israeli regime is seeking the Judaization of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. That's alluding to an earlier provocative proposal by Israel's far-right minister, Itamar Ben-Gavir, to construct a synagogue in the holy site. Are the Israelis just constantly searching to escalate tensions?

Mazin Qumsiyeh: Indeed, that's what they are doing. The Israeli government sometimes claims that Ben-Gvir doesn't speak for it, but then actually funds him. He's a minister, after all, we have to remember. He's Minister of Internal Security. They handed to him both the police and the prison services. So he's in charge of torturing prisoners, already 21,000 or more Palestinian prisoners are in Israeli jails, basically being tortured, deprived of food, et cetera, and beaten regularly, and many died, over 50 died. This is all under his watch.

And on the other side, he goes regularly into Al-Aqsa Mosque, claiming that he's going to make a synagogue there, he's going to build the third temple, the supposed third temple, and so on, and he allocates money for this. He has Smotrich, after all, his partner in crime. Also another settler is another minister, the Minister of Finance. He's the one with the Israeli government purse. So the Israeli government just allocated money to those fanatical settlers that go into Al-Aqsa Mosque regularly, violating the status quo, even though Netanyahu says there's no change on the status quo. This is nonsense. He knows there's a change in the status quo. He's funding it. His government is funding it, allowing those fanatical settlers to go in there, perform rituals as if they are really religious people, but claim to perform rituals there against the status quo. The Jordanian monarchy that's supposed to be in charge of Al-Aqsa Mosque or custodian of the Al-Aqsa Mosque is not doing anything other than verbal complaints and they still actually support Israel and get it what it needs through a land bridge. Egypt is the same thing. Egypt has shipping lanes open, connecting the ports of Alexandria and Ismailiyah to Haifa and occupied ports. So we have a problem. We have a problem in verbal things don't matter to us anymore. We know what's happening on the ground. And it seems the only groups that are willing to put their lives at risk to resist it are the resistance groups.

Mr. Kevin Barrett, very briefly, if you may, because we're running short of time. Hamas has called for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation's serious action to oppose such Israeli plans. They've encouraged Arab and Islamic nations to protest Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people and their lands. A lot of criticism in that regard has been directed at Arab governments for their inaction and passivity in the face of Israel's crimes. Why are we not seeing that type of action?

Kevin Barrett: Over the years, the Zionists have managed to co-opt the leadership of a great many Islamic nations, and they've also terrorized the leadership of Islamic nations. The single biggest step forward they made in that regard was when Israel attacked the United States on September 11, using their neoconservative American assets. And that allowed the United States military to be hijacked by the Zionists to go after their regional enemies. They took the gloves off. They got rid of various leaders that were a problem to them in Iraq and Libya and elsewhere. And currently, the leadership of these Arab countries is essentially terrorized. They know that their life will be much easier if they don't do anything in public to antagonize the Zionists.

Now, I just hope that they're doing things in private. I hope that there are forces in the Islamic world below the surface that are working very, very hard to support the Palestinian resistance. And ultimately, I think this problem is going to be solved by military means, by special weapons that will be pointed at the head of the Zionist entity. It will then have to end its genocide.

But we're going to unfortunately have to wait a long time before the leaders of these regional countries have the courage to speak out and do the right thing, to do their duty to God and their faith.

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

My escape from America after a three-week visit went swimmingly. (I am now back in Saidia, Morocco, swimming in the Med every day). Unlike Scott Ritter, I wasn’t prevented from boarding an international flight, then sent home to be raided by the FBI. Unlike Richard Medhurst, I wasn’t arrested, dragged out of the airport, and thrown in a jail cell for the crime of practicing alternative journalism. And unlike Pavel Durov, I wasn’t kidnapped by thought police to be tortured until I turned over my passwords.

I got out before nuclear World War III breaks out (which could be sooner than most people realize, since in the current situation, Russia expert Gilbert Doctorow tells us, “a preventive Russian attack on NATO, on the continental United States, not to mince words, is entirely conceivable.”) I got out before a monkeypox scamdemic locks down airports. I got out before an actual Trump assassination attempt by his Deep State enemies (as opposed to the July 13 preventive PR op) leads to all hell breaking loose. I got out before another stolen, I mean, disputed election throws the country into chaos.

Why I Left

In 2006, during an interview on Wisconsin Public Radio, the host—I believe it was Joy Cardin—asked me something like: “If you really believe 9/11 was an inside job, why are you still living in America?” My answer was something like “I’ll be damned if I let those neocon b******s run me out of my country.” Since there was still a modicum of free speech, I planned to use it by way of a truth jihad. And it worked…for awhile. Until around 2015 the 9/11 truth movement dominated the internet. The search engines still gave honest results, such that anyone googling anything about 9/11 was led to the most-frequented urls relating to 9/11—the truther sites and videos. The notion that internet platforms could discriminate on the basis of political viewpoint was anathema, as it had been since the internet’s founding.

But by the mid-twenty-teens, internet freedom started dying. Neocon think tanks, following Cass Sunstein’s lead, pushed the idea that in an era of dangerous “conspiracy theories,” viewpoint neutrality was no longer viable. Trump’s election was blamed on internet freedom in general and Russia’s misuse of it in particular. Within a year or two, the worldwide web was no longer a free speech zone. I was relentlessly shadowbanned and increasingly deplatformed (first by Facebook and GoFundMe, and then, in the wake of COVID, by Patreon and YouTube).

As freedom vanished, popular and elite culture became more vapid and vulgar. The subliminal message that truth is dangerous penetrated the mass mind. But deep, dangerous truth, and the hearty and fearless willingness to embrace it, is what gives both conversation and artistic creativity their zing. Today, most of the people willing to face taboo truths rarely speak them in real life, and feel the need to hide behind masks of internet anonymity when they post them online. Even truthspeaking has become part of a general culture of people constantly staring at their phones and getting emotionally riled up about the taglines and images popping up on their tiny little screens.

An unfree America—or, rather, an America whose founding ideology of freedom has degenerated from celebrating thoughtfully subversive expression to repressing it and instead celebrating the “freedom” to flaunt sexual deviance and murder unborn babies—is an America not worth living in.

Is Freedom Overrated?

Though the USA calls itself “one nation under God,” it’s obvious to all that freedom, not God, is the nation’s unifying transcendent value and de facto religion. The transition from a more balanced regime of “God and freedom” to today’s “freedom from God” has paradoxically resulted in the diminishment of actual freedom. There are reasons for that, too complex to go into here. For details check out Peter Simpson’s critique of political liberalism.

Here in Morocco, freedom is definitely not the nation’s unifying transcendent value. God is. Freedom is just a useful heuristic: “Let people do their thing unless there is a good reason not to.”

The king of Morocco’s role is not freedom-crushing despotism, but rather to symbolize the religiously-legitimized sovereignty that every man enjoys in his own house. “God, country, king” is the national motto, and though the subtext isn’t exactly the Huey Long version of “every man a king,” it’s on the same wavelength. (Likewise, every woman is the queen of her house in general, and its inner portions and kitchen in particular—but the roles of men and women are still different and still based on complementarity/polarity rather than equality/identity.)

The king of Morocco, the national patriarch, slaughters a sheep on Eid every year, as do all Moroccan male heads of households. This ritual of sovereign masculinity symbolizes and reinforces patriarchy. For a good secular-Freudian analysis, see Combs-Schilling’s Sacred Performances.

A few days before I left the USA, certain family members almost slaughtered me during dinner table conversation for saying “patriarchy is a good thing.” I explained that patriarchy means “rule by fathers” which is by far the most natural and benevolent form of social organization. Every culture’s biggest problem, as anthropologists know, is what to do with young, unattached, testosterone-addled males, who—left to their own devices—will gang up and rape, pillage, and destroy society. The near-universal solution: Women civilize them by marrying them and turning them into fathers. Once civilized by women and taught to protect and defend the weak rather than rape and pillage, the men—natural rulers/alphas thanks to their testosterone-fueled will to dominance—are fit to rule wisely. (Naturally there are exceptions that prove the rule.)

A certain male relative of mine, who had unwisely had a few beers, reacted to this explanation with hysterics. He ranted furiously about how women have been oppressed throughout all of history, everywhere, screaming that it had all been proven by thousands and thousands of scientific studies, even though he couldn’t cite a single one of them. Sharing the values of the “freedom from” Democrats, he naturally supports both women’s and men’s freedom from responsibility for the babies they create: Women shouldn’t be enslaved to carry babies in their wombs for nine months and then in their arms for several more years, and men shouldn’t be enslaved by being forced to financially support the women they impregnate and the babies that result. The result of all that “freedom from,” of course, is freedom from life. The current natives of the USA, with their current lowest-ever-and-still-plummeting 1.66 babies-per-woman birthrate, will be extinct within a few generations. When that happens, the world will breathe a sigh of relief at its freedom from America in general, and hysterical male feminists in particular.

Where to Escape?

I escaped to Morocco, a moderately liberal Islamic royalist patriarchy. The weather here is pleasant, though a bit hot in the summers. Fortunately a five minute walk through a eucalyptus-forested park brings you to the best beach in Africa, 14km of clear turquoise water bounded by sand. Food, housing, and fiber optic internet are cheap, people are friendly, and biking is so good it’s easy to get by without a car.

More and more Americans and Europeans are escaping to Morocco. My neighbor Henri, a white Frenchman, has been here for something like 15 or 20 years. But Henri is the exception, since most Western expatriates gravitate towards Western Morocco and cities like Marrakesh, Casablanca, Tangier, and Rabat. Here in Eastern Morocco, known as l’Orientale, there are relatively few tourists. Even Saidia, the beach paradise I inhabit, draws hardly any Westerners. Tourists swarm here in the summers, but most of them are relatively well-to-do ethnic Moroccans from France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, or the Netherlands.

It would be challenging to live here in Eastern Morocco permanently without speaking good French and/or Arabic. But I understand that a fair number of monolingual Americans are doing fine in the expat colonies of Western Morocco.

Another option is “Occupied Morocco,” more accurately “Occupied al-Andalus.” I’m referring, tongue-in-cheek, to Spain, which like Morocco has nice Mediterranean weather and a lower cost of living than the US. (Spain’s cost of living isn’t as low as Morocco’s, of course.) Spanish is easier than French and much easier than Arabic, and the culture is less exotically different from America’s than Morocco. I know a number of Americans who have escaped to Spain, and they all seem to be doing well there.

Then there is the nearest and most popular American expat destination, Mexico. You can speak Spanish and enjoy a lower cost of living there, too…and return to the USA relatively cheaply and easily, though God knows why you would want to.

I also know some folks, including Gilad Atzmon, who’ve moved to Greece. Like the previously-mentioned countries, it features relatively warm weather and a lower-than-America cost of living. I understand some expats there have issues with the language, which is harder to learn than Spanish and French, though easier than Russian and Arabic.

If you like a cooler continental climate, there is always Russia. Though Russia shares with Morocco the challenge of a daunting language (Russian being somewhat easier than Arabic, but much harder than Spanish or French) one major upside is that the authorities there are explicitly calling for fed-up Westerners to immigrate!

Russia offers safe haven for people trying to escape Western liberal ideals

So if you’re pissed off at the West and want to move to a country with a government that is likewise pissed off, Russia would have to be at the top of the list…unless you’re a Shia Muslim, in which case Iran or Lebanon might beckon. Or if you’re Chinese, or a Sinophile, you could always move to the Next Global Superpower.

The Ultimate Escape

Obviously you can’t completely escape the Anglo-Zionist Empire. From their point of view, you’re either in the imperial center, the periphery, or “a target.” The US and to a lesser extent Western Europe are the center. Morocco’s more peripheral, but still in the imperial orbit. Russia, Iran, Lebanon, and of course China are targets.

So ultimately if you want to escape the empire, you’re going to have to overthrow it. That’s a project we should all pitch in on, wherever we find ourselves.

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

Bitchute link Rumble link (missing last 20 min.)

Anti-aging scientist Josh Mitteldorf has a somewhat different take on libertarianism from my live show’s first hour guest Etienne de la Boetie, as Josh explains in “Science and Politics, Libertarian and Socialist.” While aligned with Libertarians in support of free speech and opposition to war and government surveillance, Josh writes, “I part company when it comes to the libertarian credo of the sanctity of private property…Private property is not a God-given right, and it is certainly not ‘natural law.’ The earth doesn’t belong to me, and the fact that I dig up a diamond doesn’t imply that my ownership is an unalienable right. Not only doesn’t the earth belong to me, it doesn’t belong to Bill Gates or Exxon Mobil or the Bureau of Land Management.”

Do you agree with the libertarianism of Etienne, Josh, or neither/nor? Drop a comment when this show is archived 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

Libertarian author and Substacker Etienne de la Boetie of Art of Liberty makes his Truth Jihad Radio debut to discuss his suspicions about the July 13 alleged Trump shooting. Check out that link and see which of the 23 reasons, if any, you find the most convincing. We may also discuss who JD Vance really is, how bad the COVID jab really is, and what the US government really is, among other topics. And we’ll likely discuss the Democrats’ rebranding themselves as “the Party of Freedom (From).”

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

Rumble link Bitchute link

Former White House policy analyst Barbara Honegger discusses the Stalinist show trials (complete with rescinded plea deals) for innocent 9/11 scapegoats Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others falsely accused of Israel’s 9/11/2001 attack on America. That discussion occupies the first ten minutes. Also on the agenda is the July 13 “Trump shooting” in Butler, PA. In the video version linked above, Barbara Honegger presents images supporting her contention that Trump was never shot, though others were, in what amounts to yet another murderous publicity stunt.

Barbara Honegger’s pioneering book October Surprise, the first by almost three years and subsequently confirmed by formerly classified documents and deathbed confessions of key conspirators, led to a Congressionally mandated re-investigation of the Iran side of the Iran-Contra scandal funded at the level of the 9/11 Commission.

Excerpt from the interview:

Obviously, if you or I were the lawyers for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and company, we would mount a 9/11 truth defense. That is, we would bring in the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and ask: How could this guy have had access to the Twin Towers to do the most technologically sophisticated demolition in the history of engineering? That would not only be a slam dunk defense on the facts, but also it would force the government to back off, because they can't allow you to make that defense in public or they're screwed. So basically, if you're the lawyer for these guys, you have to make that defense. It's an absolute winner, both on the facts, and also the government has to fold if you have the guts to make it. So why won't they make that defense?

Well, that's a very good question. We'd hopefully have to get Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's main defense attorney on your show. And his name is in the articles that I give the links to in my PowerPoint presentation that will hopefully be on your show page for today's show. The other thing that is really important to know is that based upon what I just told you about what really happened in the lead up to 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other two in their plea deal, with their attorneys, of course, going along with it and probably writing every word of the plea deal, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others agreed to pleading guilty to every single one of the individual murders.

But they didn't do any of them, not a single one of them. So there's no question in my mind that these defense attorneys are really part of the conspiracy to try to lock down the official story at Guantanamo.

That makes a lot of sense. What we really should have done was renditioned or arrested Netanyahu when he came before Congress, and prosecuted him for each one of those murders.

Yeah. What did they call the waterboarding? They had a euphemism for it.

Enhanced interrogation.

Oh, yeah. The enhanced interrogation of Dick Cheney and Benjamin Netanyahu. That would make a great stage play.

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

Ahnaf Ibn Qais discusses “Escalation & Prelude to Total War.” It begins:

“The World is on the Brink of Total War.

“While it is uncertain what particular sequence will play out to get us all there, it is clear that we are on the cusp of a Nuclear Exchange & are waiting to see how it will manifest soon. If anything, even the ‘Normies’ understand that the DOOM cometh:

“The United States of America, that Evil Empire of Lies & Great Satan, has all but ensured that it will be entering the coming War at a grave disadvantage.

“Not only will it fight the Sinic, Russian & Islamic worlds simultaneously, but it will also try to do all this ( & more ) while its Industry, Manufacturing & overall Military Prowess are at an all-time low…”

Excerpt from the interview:

So let's talk about this article from Ahnaf entitled Escalation and Prelude to Total War. Hey, welcome, Ahnaf Ibn Qais. How are you, good sir?

Doing well. Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. Thank you for having me on, good sir.

Good to have you back. So, you wrote this a couple of weeks ago, that the world is on the brink of total war. And it isn't any less on the brink now than it was then, is it?

Yes, yes. What has happened is that after the assassination of Brother Haniyeh, a lot of rumors were circulating with regard to how exactly it happened. Some were saying it was like a bomb in a guest house. Other people were saying that it was poison. So for the first 72 to about 96 hours or so, I had no clue what was happening.

Later on, multiple telegram channels of the geopolitics people that I follow were saying that they got confirmation that actually it was

an ATGM type weapon with a seven kilogram TNT load. So they basically disassembled it, took it inside the country, put it together and shot it right through his window. And that's basically how they took him out.

But the reason I bring this up and the reason why it's relevant to our conversation is that this is basically a hostile act on Iranian soil. And the Iranian envoy at the UN Assembly invoked Article 51, which is the article saying that if you're attacked on your home soil, you have the right to self-defense.

And that's basically what the Iranian mindset on this thing: look, you've crossed all red lines. You've crossed all boundaries. You've slapped us in the face. You leave us with no choice.

And that's basically what's happening in terms of the essay I wrote about two weeks ago. I was writing that right before the assassination, right? So there's a lot of stuff, unfortunately, that happened after it. That being said, I think it's still relevant in the sense that there are a lot of trends I cover in that essay. But in terms of what's pertinent right now on August 9th is that you've got this situation where the Russians have all this military cargo—they've got the IL-76 and all these jets. Basically if you want to carry electronic warfare equipment, the heavy stuff like that, or the S-400 or other related systems, that's the plane you use.

And multiple sorties are already happening from Moscow to Tehran and nearby areas. According to one of the OSINT people—these are people who basically spend hours a day looking at air traffic and looking at the skies—there have already been more than 20 sorties back and forth.

So just to give our dear listeners an idea of what that actually means, in November to December of 2021, the Russians were doing a similar number of sorties towards the border areas with Ukraine. Now, back then, when people pointed this out—the technology people, the OSINT people—the normies were saying, “oh, well, nothing's going to happen. Russia is just bluffing. Nothing's going to happen.” I think that's wrongheaded and very, very naive. My view always is that you look at what a person does, not what they say. And then you figure out what they're about to do.

It's very, very clear what's about to happen. Iran is going to launch a counterattack and it's going to be extremely brutal, based on all these sorties and all the data we're seeing thus far. It might not happen today. It might not happen tomorrow. It might not even happen a few weeks from now, but it is going to happen. And the reason I know this for certain is because of this mass number of sorties.

Interesting. So what exactly is being brought into Iran for this purpose?

So the Russians have given them the S-400 system. The S-400 is—some people would say, it is the best anti-air system in the world. So if the Americans actually deployed their F-400s to the Israelis or whatnot, the Iranians can actually shoot them down if it comes down to it. Let's say that the Israelis are going to use a bunch of tankers and going to do this really reckless 2000 plus kilometer charge, a mad rush into Iran. If they do something like that…maybe let's say they decide, “okay, we're going to hit Iraq or Lebanon or any of these other places.”

You can use the S-400 to actually shoot down the F-16s very easily. The F-22 and F-35 as well.

I know that the America bros are going to say stuff like, “oh, well, you know, the S-400 is outdated. Our stuff is much better.” The problem with the newer jets, especially the F-22 and the F-35, is that their ratio for maintenance to flight time is very, very high. What I mean by that is for every one hour of airtime, you need about nine hours plus for maintenance.

Now, why is that relevant? I'm throwing out a bunch of numbers. What does that mean? If you're flying for, let's say, four hours in the air, that means that you need about 36 hours on the ground. And you can use this data point to figure out where the guy is taking off from, where he's flying to, and so forth.

And so when you're picking your targets, you can actually figure this out, right? We have to understand something. Anti-air systems can be easily modified. If you've got an anti-air system, you can easily modify it into an offensive system, right? dsfSo the Russians actually sending the Iranians this stuff is a very, very big escalation.

When I was in Iran, I went to the Aerospace Museum, And among the various things shown there were some anti-aircraft systems. And I was told that Iran has the equivalent already of the S-400 systems. They have their own indigenous version. They basically got the S-300 already from Russia, and then they ended up building their own S-400 equivalent. One of the missiles is actually quite large. It takes up this huge room. The whole thing takes up a gigantic room there at the Aerospace Museum. So I think they already had some pretty advanced air defenses. And probably this will just be icing on the cake.

Yes. What you're I think what you're talking about is the core dot core dot. It operates with like the SIA tree missiles. OK, I guess maybe I'm like nerding out here with like military stuff. But I guess the way I would describe it is you've got basically an effective range of about 120 miles. And so you can knock out quite a few different things. It can detect like stealth, quote unquote.

The Americans say, OK, our jets are stealth. But even if you're stealth, what that really means is the radar signature that you give off is very, very small. But it does not disappear, which is the point. Stealth is actually a misnomer. It's actually an incorrect concept. When people tell you “my jet has stealth,”

what they're really telling you is, the radar signature, the cross-sectional area or what have you, that's very, very small. But that doesn't matter because like, okay, the SIAT trees and the Core.15, right? The Core.15 can do up to, like I said, 120 kilometers. But if you've got stealth it kind of narrows it down a bit. Let's say from 120 kilometers, you go down to about, I don't know, 50 or 60 kilometers, or maybe a bit higher than that. But if you've got like a networked array of these guys, and the other guy is(sending) only two or three jets at a time, you can actually knock them out pretty easily.

And this is actually what is making the Americans have second thoughts. They're telling their Qatari and Egyptian vassals “maybe now we should go for a ceasefire.” And I think that's what the joint statement was about, which was very, very shameful. I think from the Egyptians and the Qataris were saying, “Oh, you know, Iran, please show restraint. Oh, please, please sign the truce now. Don't be the better man, Iran.”

So they're doing all this like song and dance, this dog and pony show, because they know what's about to happen, right? The Iranians are about to take the gloves off.

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