Truth Jihad Radio

Rumble link Bitchute link

On June 3, former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter was prevented from traveling to the St. Petersburg Economic Forum. Three armed Customs and Border Patrol officers snatched his passport at the airport, telling Ritter that they were following State Department orders. No reason was given for the seizure.

Whatever the legal pretext for confiscating Ritter’s passport, it’s clear that the real issue is that Ritter’s political views are not aligned with those of the regime in Washington. If Ritter had been traveling abroad to a conference to echo the US government’s talking points, he would have had an uneventful trip and would still have his passport.

Ritter’s passport seizure exemplifies the DC regime’s ever-accelerating crackdown on dissent. On the previous day, June 2, one of the regime’s leading propaganda mouthpieces, the failing Washington Post, had published a vicious smear all but calling for the prosecution of Grayzone journalists. According to the Post, some of those journalists had worked with, or been interviewed by, sanctioned foreign media outlets.

It seems that the regime occupying Washington, DC is increasingly reluctant to allow Americans to travel to conferences abroad, to interact with foreign media, and even to question official narratives while based in the US—as Alex Jones learned the hard way. At the same time that Ritter and The Grayzone were being persecuted for communicating with foreigners, Alex Jones was stripped of his ownership of Infowars. Like Ritter and The Grayzone, Jones and Infowars have had the temerity to question official narratives. And while that is not yet officially a crime, it might as well be, since the authorities have shown ever-increasing willingness to bend both civil and criminal law to target nonviolent dissidents.

Passport Seizures Are Unconstitutional

Blinken’s State Department violated the Constitution when it seized Ritter’s passport for political reasons. The McCarthy-era practice of denying passports to dissidents was outlawed by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision in June 1958, among whose beneficiaries was the famous singer and communist sympathizer Paul Robeson. “In a 5-4 ruling…the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional the State Department’s denial of a passport because of a citizen’s political beliefs.”

Mainstream media have shown no interest in reporting on Blinken’s blatantly unconstitutional violation of Ritter’s right to travel. Since June 3 I have used Google to fruitlessly search for MSM stories on the incident. Today, eight days after the passport seizure, here is what a Google search for “Scott Ritter passport” returns:

At the end of the list we find anti-Ritter pieces in the Albany Times Union, Ritter’s local paper, and Yahoo News Singapore. That, along with a Quora question, is pretty much the extent of the mainstream coverage.

Google’s #1 suggestion for those interested in the issue is the Kyiv Post’s hilariously over-the-top propaganda rant “Why Scott Ritter’s Passport Seizure Is Long Overdue.” That masterpiece of unintentional comedy, seemingly outsourced (by Langley or Tel Aviv?) to a regime hack in Dubai who writes like a hysteric overdosing on captagon, sounds like something Stalin might have commissioned to smear someone lined up to be shot after a show trial:

Given his penchant for cozying up to enemies of the free world and shamelessly monetizing his deep-seated abhorrence of everything the United States stands for, it is high time draconian action were taken by the current administration to bring Scott Ritter back down to earth. Although he gallivants around the globe under the guise of “waging peace”, nothing would please the erstwhile intelligence operative more than laying the blame of a Russian victory at the feet of President Joe Biden, who he has had an axe to grind with ever since his famous 1998 dressing down in Congress by the then senator over focusing on issues “above his pay grade.”

“Draconian action” to bring Ritter “down to (meaning ‘under’?) earth” because he opposes Biden…that sounds a lot like a death threat, doesn’t it? The fulminating editorialist, writing under the name Sahil Menon, apparently would have preferred that the regime shoot down Ritter’s plane, not just his passport.

Is Sahil Menon a nom de plume of the notorious American tranny Ukro-Nazi Sarah Ashton-Cirillo, who has long been in the habit of calling for assassinations of American dissidents? Does he/she/it want to see Ritter share the fate of Gonzalo Lira, the American alternative journalist who was kidnapped, tortured, extorted, and murdered by the Washington regime’s Ukrainian proxies for the crime of telling the truth on YouTube?

Since “Menon,” an obscure hack and hideously awful writer, had “his” unhinged hit piece promoted to #1 by Google, we may assume that it represents the regime’s official view. How else would “he” know that:

What landed Ritter in hot water, however, was disingenuously passing off his recent visits to Russia as bridge-building pilgrimages when they were nothing more than social-climbing escapades during which he ended up rubbing shoulders with and being glad-handed by untold senior government figures.

Talking with “senior government figures”?! That’s the same crime Tucker Carlson committed when he interviewed Vladimir Putin. It’s called “journalism.”

Even worse, according to “Menon,” is the possibility that Ritter might be “flirting with the idea of seeking asylum in Russia.” In other words, if he’s being persecuted by the American regime, moving to another country is tantamount to a crime, and the regime is justified in seizing his passport to prevent him from escaping their clutches. When your government starts thinking that way, it’s time to pack your backs and leave before it’s too late.

Would the Fall of the Biden Regime Change Anything?

Obviously the Biden regime brooks little disagreement. Donald Trump knows that better than anyone, as he desperately tries to fend off a swarm of questionable civil and criminal prosecutions.

But would Trump be any better? As he flails around for funding, Trump has sold out to the hardline Zionist billionaires led by Miriam Adelson. And it’s Zionists, the real American Deep State, who are presumably driving the persecutions of “Hamas cheerleaders” like Scott Ritter and the GrayZone. They’re also persecuting and silencing student protesters, professors, law reviews, musicians, famous commentators, and anyone else who doesn’t like genocide.

It seems all-too-likely that a second Trump regime would go ultra-Zionist, surpass Biden, and complete the shredding of the Constitution begun by his predecessors. But whoever wins in 2024, it’s highly likely that polarization-driven civil strife will give the party in power an excuse to invoke an emergency, crack down on opposition, and consign the American experiment to the history books.

The USA is not the same country I grew up in. A nation that once prided itself on not just tolerating but encouraging vigorous debate has become the land of the unfree—a country of cowed conformists kowtowing to mainstream bromides that nobody really believes but few have the courage to openly challenge. Meanwhile, the Zionist Occupation Government, frustrated in Occupied Palestine but virtually unopposed in Occupied America, gets bolder and nastier every day.

If you, unlike Scott Ritter, still have a passport, you might want to consider using it—and getting out while you still can.

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

Glenn Diesen discusses his book The Ukraine War and the Eurasian World Order. He sketches the historical background from a geopolitical realist perspective, and argues that “to understand the war it is necessary to acknowledge that it has three participants: NATO, Russia, and Ukraine, with their respective objectives. NATO under U.S. leadership explicitly seeks to defeat Russia to end its great power status…Russia considers the war to be an existential threat and has acted accordingly…Ukraine obviously also considers the war to be an existential threat, although different factions within Ukraine may turn on each other…Irrespective of the outcome of the war, the unipolar world order has come to an end…A Eurasian world order is now finally emerging as the international distribution of power continues to shift from the West to the East, and the legitimacy of the Western-centric world order has been severely weakened.”

Dr. Glenn Diesen is a Scholarly Teaching Fellow at the Department of Security Studies and Criminology at Macquarie University. He studied international relations, Russian foreign policy, and security institutions in the European post-Cold War security architecture.

Excerpt:

During the first hour of the show, Alan Sabrosky agreed that we're transitioning toward a multipolar order. He felt that the US empire’s nuclear brinksmanship, having Ukrainian proxies attacking Russian early warning systems, exemplifies its reckless willingness to push things right up to the nuclear brink and beyond. And for that reason, he thought that the emergence of this multipolar world was questionable, or the way it's going to happen is questionable. He seemed to disagree with my analysis, which I put out as soon as Russia, quote unquote “invaded” Ukraine, that the Russians have more skin in the game, so the nuclear deterrent becomes more credible on the Russian side than on the US side. It's not totally existential for the US as a nation in the way that it is existential for Russia as a nation. But Alan thinks that the US empire is run by people who are so crazy—the neoconservatives—that they are going to push the nuclear brinksmanship just as hard as the Russians are. And that strikes me as a very pessimistic forecast. What do you think?

Well, I agree that the Russians, as you said, have more skin in the game. And the fact that it's at this proximity, that it's on the border of Russia, gives the Russians two advantages. One would be the actual war fighting, because in large-scale wars such as this, logistics is the key. And as it's happening on the Russian borders, they will simply have more benefits, as opposed to the United States, who have to supply everything from the other side of the planet.

But the second, obviously, is that they have more to lose. This is an existential threat for Russia. They see this as essentially a fight for survival, so they will go all the way. Which also raises the question, where are we going with these escalations? Because NATO is gradually escalating. Remember, first we weren't going to have tanks, then we did artillery, now missiles. The missiles can strike inside Russia. Now (NATO is) attacking Russia’s early warning system.

So, we have this gradual escalation. First of all, this can trigger a response from the Russians, which they're already arguing is coming. But even if we're able to defeat the Russians, this would likely result in the Russians having to resort to nuclear weapons.

One can try to put oneself in the position of the adversary. Imagine if it was the other way around—if it was the Russians who had helped install an anti-American government in Mexico and the Russians began to put their weapon systems in there. Obviously giving the Mexicans weapons to strike inside American territory, bombing American cities—Russia wouldn't want to win this war, because the United States would have to resort to nuclear weapons at the end.

But I don't think we have any strategic and diplomatic way out. Because it seems not just the United States, but the collective West, doesn’t have any strategic imagination for anything else than hegemony. And we see this also as being a conflict about world order, which is why we're willing to risk everything, effectively. Because if we can defeat the Russians, the idea is that we can go back to the one central power. And if we lose it, then the West will be very discredited—and especially the Europeans, by the way. I think the Americans will be fine. In Europe, we're in much greater trouble. But there's so much at stake. And this is why we're willing to take such great risks. But it’s also very uncharted territory we're getting into. And overall, because it's a struggle for world order, as I argue, it's essentially almost like a winner take all. This is the most dangerous strategy, when usually countries would end up in war. And of course, between the two world's largest nuclear powers, this is a disaster.

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

Dr. Alan Sabrosky continues his “first Friday of the month” slot with a timely discussion of two naval anniversaries: the D-Day invasion and Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty.

We also consider: What might Russia do in response to US & West expanding long-range attacks and taking out Russia’s early warning radar? Possible Russian responses are discussed these two stories:

Should Vladimir Putin Call His Shot on a NATO Brushback Pitch? by Ron Unz 

Putin warns that Russia could provide long-range weapons to others to strike Western targets 

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

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

Rumble link Bitchute link

The discussion of these issues continues on today’s live radio show with Alan Sabrosky and tomorrow’s False Flag Weekly News with J.Michael Springmann.

Welcome to Truth Jihad Audio Visual. I'm Kevin Barrett doing this podcast in one form or another since 2006, bringing on a whole lot of the most interesting outside-the-box thinkers and troublemakers. And we're going to continue in that tradition today with the author of a terrific new book Charlottesville and the Death of Free Speech. That's Jason Kessler, who actually was the permit holder at the Charlottesville rally in August of 2017. So, hey, welcome, Jason, and congratulations on this great book.

Thank you very much. I appreciate you having me on.

Yeah, well, I appreciate your book. It confirmed a lot of my suspicions, since I get information from both the usual mainstream sources and the alternative sources, and I noticed this is one of those cases where you really have to look at the alternative sources. Because they (the mainstream sources) were putting out such a one-sided propaganda narrative. And your side of the story is, frankly, a heck of a lot more convincing than the mainstream take..

So here's a shot of the book, and let's get into it. You got involved in activism, and you make it clear you had three main issues: Free speech, save the Robert E. Lee monument in your home town of Charlottesville, and “it's OK to be white.” And those three issues kind of come together. So let’s talk about how you took up those issues.

Sure. So it was a long process. I started out actually on the left, but not really today's left. It was more about being anti-war. I opposed the Iraq war during the George W. Bush presidency. But during the Obama administration, things started to become very racialized from my perspective, where the news sources I was relying on, like NPR and Huffington Post, seemed to be portraying white men constantly as the bad guys. They were picking up this very politicized narrative about supposedly innocent black men being gunned down by police. And when I would look into alternative information sources on that, I could see that these were actually hardened criminals. There were extenuating circumstances like reaching for a police officer's gun, etc. And then the reaction afterwards with black people rioting in these cities and killing people, causing property damage, it just seemed like they were just papering over that, like it didn't even matter.

So it caused me to really lose faith in the left and start to move towards something else, which is where I'm at now, which is not really liberal or conservative, but my primary issue is... that white people are under attack.

You were an Obama voter. So it's not like you came into this whole thing with some kind of racial animus, right?

No, I, and still to this day, I don't really harbor like hate in my heart or whatever. I say controversial things online sometimes because the reaction to even tepid race realism is so over the top. If you're a free speech guy, at a certain point, you're just like, “screw it. Sometimes I'm just going to say very controversial things because I don't like people telling me what I can and can't say.”

That makes sense to me. And I can kind of see how you pull all these things together, because to my mind, one of the good things about our American heritage is the First Amendment. We can hash out our differences without shooting at each other, which a lot of Americans did back in the day, but it's always better to hash it out by arguing, and that's what we're supposed to be able to do. But we really can't so much any more. I think you make a good argument in this book that free speech died in Charlottesville. You quote Hunter S. Thompson. In Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas he has that famous line about how this whole protest anti-Vietnam hippie thing, the wave crested and then it rolled back. And you stand here halfway to Las Vegas or whatever, and you can see where the wave rolled back. And we can kind of see the wave of free speech rolling back. I keep asking, when did the internet suddenly become totally censored, or when did they start? When did the whole thing change? And it's obviously in the mid—like 2016-ish, 2017-ish, but I think you're right. I think and Charlottesville might be the key moment.

Yeah, I talk a little bit about the aftermath of Charlottesville and how free speech has been affected. There are obviously still some battlegrounds going on in free speech with the online discussion and Elon Musk buying Twitter. So people are still fighting for their right to be able to speak online. But Charlottesville was certainly the death of the ability of people to have unrestricted access to the public square to air their grievances. Because in Charlottesville, you just had an unthinkable situation where someone like myself, who believed in these ACLU free speech cases, who believed in the free speech movement that began in Berkeley, California in the sixties—I worked with the ACLU. We won a free speech battle in federal court in order to uphold our permit. And then the police, the city, the state and federal officials just ignored it. They were just like, “well, we don't care about that. We're going to let you be attacked by armed vigilantes.” And there were hundreds of Antifa and Black Lives Matter paramilitary soldiers with guns, with improvised flamethrowers. We have a couple of pictures of some of that.

And this is something that didn't really make it through the mainstream media: It wasn't your side that was initiating the violence. And we see this pattern over and over and over. And for people like me—I used to be sort of a left-leaning anarchist back in the day, and it was always the left and the anarchists who were for free speech. And it was mostly the right that wanted to shut down free speech. And so a lot of boomers—I'm not quite old enough to be a boomer, but I'm getting there—the boomers don't get this. They think that it's got to be the left that's for free speech. But now, it's the right. And this violent (leftist) approach to shutting down speakers and tearing down monuments seems really over the top.

So in your book, you kind of start out with your protecting the Lee monument. You have this image of French revolutionary iconoclasm tearing down statues. The ISIS people were doing that too.

And so you got interested in protecting the Lee Monument in Charlottesville. Maybe you talk a little bit about that.

Yeah, I tried to broaden the scope of the discussion in this book from just what happened in Charlottesville, because Charlottesville is not the only place that people have tried to tear down monuments. It'sbeen going on all throughout history, and it's still going on in the Middle East, when ISIS is tearing down cultural artifacts. And we saw it recently in the Floyd riots, where they were continuing to tear down Confederate monuments.

And I saw this as part of the great replacement. There's this massive demographic change that's happening in the United States and Europe, where the white population is being diminished. We're being culturally replaced at the same time as we're being ethnically replaced. And as the demographics of these countries change, the people who are in charge, they want to tear down the symbols of our past and our history that help us know where we came from and revere our heroes of the past.

And you see it in things like how they cast black people in medieval Europe biopics to make it seem like our countries have always been multiracial, multicultural. And now they're tearing down monuments like the Robert E. Lee statue. They melted it down and they're planning to put up some kind of Afrocentric statue in its place.

Yeah, I think I have some slides here of the meltdown of the Lee Monument. So yeah, the iconoclasts finally won. When did this mock execution of the Lee Monument happen?

That happened very recently. It looks like it was October 21st. They were fighting a legal battle for a long time, even after Charlottesville over this. And unfortunately, the negative publicity that the Charlottesville rally received and the fact that people in the Republican Party and on the right really didn't defend our right to free speech led to political changes. It led to the Virginia House of Representatives becoming more Democrat. And then the Democrats voted to change the laws that were protecting the Confederate monuments. So as soon as that happened, these people took advantage of that. They melted down the statue. They had a party where they were drinking and celebrating it. To them, it was a mock execution. It was a symbolic representation of the white men that they hope to replace in this country.

My uncle was a Civil War reenactor, a Civil War buff. Our ancestors fought on the side of the North. But my uncle kind of had this attitude of, he respected the Southern leaders, Lee in particular. Lee was an extraordinary character. And this whole notion of tearing down history because you project your own modern morality on the people back in a different time, and then so let's just wipe out history. Let's completely forget history. It seems like an extremely anti-intellectual attitude, something that you would think that the progressive leftist intellectual types would not like. But somehow they've all jumped on board with this like lemmings.

And and another thing is like, you know, just laying my cards on the table. I came to Islam like years ago and I've been hanging out with Muslims and lots of darker skinned people. And I currently live in Morocco. And so I'm obviously not part of the “preserve the white people movement” in any way, shape or form. However, I understand where you guys are coming from. If over in China there were people from, let's say, Africa or Europe or whatever, coming in in such numbers that ethnic Chinese people were going to be a minority within a decade or two, the Chinese wouldn't stand for it. And the same is true of Japan or—you know, pick a country. Morocco. I'm a white guy in Morocco. I'm one of the very few white guys here in this particular town of Sadia, Morocco. But if so many white people were flocking into Morocco that they were going to be the majority pretty soon, I don't think the Moroccans would like it.

So I don't think that you guys are necessarily bad people for being disturbed by this rapid demographic transition.

Well, the reason that white people need representation right now is that they're being portrayed different from all other people on earth, of all races, of all creeds, as some kind of villains. There are different rules that apply to us than anybody else. If you wanted to relate the struggle of Muslims to the struggle of white people, it's pretty easy to do, because white people are people just like any other people. And you have the Palestine issue going on right now where Jews are dominating the Muslim Palestinians and not allowing them to have their sovereignty.

Talk about “Jews will not replace us.” They’re literally replacing them.

And so essentially what we're talking about is something very similar. We also feel like there are all of these other groups, Jews and other groups, who are flocking into America and trying to take away our sovereignty to deny that America is a historically white country, to deny that the European countries are the indigenous homelands of white people. And to take away our sovereignty. And it's not right because the same people are so adamant that all other races and creeds deserve that sovereignty. So we demand the same.

Of course, the Native Americans would have something to say about replacement and all that. But yeah, it's just when demographic change is happening too fast, and especially when it feels like it's happening through stealth and through underhanded tactics, and then you're not even allowed to talk about it, or you get shut down violently—I can see why that really pisses people off.

And so here you are at a free speech symposium. You went to various council meetings and quickly discovered that there were a lot of folks in Charlottesville that didn't like hearing these things.

Yeah, it was really shocking to me because I was born in Charlottesville. As I talk about in the book, it was the home of Thomas Jefferson. His University of Virginia was founded there. His home of Monticello is there. And he, of course, was one of the writers of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights. And he immortalized the most expansive free speech protections in the world, in the United States of America.

Previously, Charlottesville had upheld those values. And for instance, at the University of Virginia, they had something called the Thomas Jefferson Center for Free Expression. That's where that free speech symposium was held. But when I went there, everyone on the panel was a leftist. And I'm like thinking to myself, well, it's conservatives themselves that are under attack right now. It's not leftists. So why can't you have even one Trump supporter, for instance, on this panel, if you're talking about free speech? You're denying intellectual diversity here. And all of the people on the panel pretty much tried to shut me down and say, well, we don't need that. Basically “Trump supporters and these other folks are racist and they don't deserve a seat at the table.” And I'm thinking, this disease has metastasized and it's spread way further than people could possibly imagine, if the free speech defenders are saying things like this.

And there was a professor named Muir who got forced out at this point and nobody seemed to care except you. What was that about?

Doug Muir was an economics professor. He wasn't a political guy, but on his personal Facebook, he said something about Black Lives Matter being the most racist group since the Klan. And so because of that, all of these activist types in the community formed up in mobs. It was really before cancel culture was known as a thing, before cancel mobs were a thing. And these people, led by the black supremacist vice mayor of Charlottesville, Wes Bellamy, went to this guy's restaurant and tried to boycott it, tried to get people to stop frequenting his business so it would close down. All over this pretty tepid comment.

Of course, these same people are accusing their enemies of being racist all the time, but the second a white man does it, it's a big problem.

So he lost his job or was forced out from a teaching position?

Correct.

We've seen more and more of that. And most of the time it seems that it's that people get forced out because of the power of the Zionists. They usually offend Zionists or sometimes Jewish liberal diversity advocates. But it's mostly Zionists. Like when I got forced out of the University of Wisconsin over 9/11 truth, I think the real movers and shakers behind that actually were the Zionists. And they immediately started calling me a Holocaust denier, even though at that point I knew nothing about that issue. And it's kind of interesting how that group is always shutting down free speech.

Speaking of people who shut down free speech, Antifa, which we keep hearing excuses for in the mainstream media, has a pretty solid record of running around trying to stop other people from speaking. Whereas your side, Jason, as I understand it, does not go around trying to stop them from having events and listening to speakers. Am I wrong?

No, you're absolutely correct. I'm not aware of any situations where right wingers or white identitarians have gone to a left wing event and tried to shut them down. I've heard of a few instances of counter protests, but never trying to shut down events with violence. Certainly if anybody tried to do that, they would all be rounded up and arrested immediately, unlike with Antifa, where they're just given a slap on the wrist and released, if the authorities don't just ignore them altogether.

In fact, a big part of my journey as a free speech advocate was understanding what you were just talking about with the Jewish issue, with this Zionist issue. If you're just a normal person who's raised in the public education system, you hear about things like Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. And it sounds scary. It's like you don't want to do something that people think makes you a bad person. But as I've associated with all of these white nationalists and alt-right people who do regularly criticize Jewish power and Zionism, I've seen this powerful mechanism from both the top and the bottom just come to crush these people. If you believe in free speech, it's totally antithetical to that to allow people who question the historicity of the Holocaust, whether they're correct or not, to be arrested. That's a politically based prosecution. Those are political prisoners.

And then from the bottom, you see that these vigilantes like Antifa are given extreme leeway to violently attack anybody who criticizes Jewish power. And so the top and the bottom work together. The top, you know, uses the mechanism of government to oppress people who speak out on these issues. And then at the bottom, the vigilantes are given carte blanche to enact violence while the system looks the other way.

Yeah, it looks that way to me, too. So this Unite the Right rally that you sponsored in August of ended up becoming kind of a disaster in various ways, but also a landmark in other ways. And I think your book is probably going to be of interest to people historically when they want to look back and figure out what really went on there.

Your idea of this was “unite the right.” That is, you were trying to reach out to sort of ordinary Trump voting folks and say, look, what's wrong with free speech? What's wrong with saving monuments? And really, what's wrong with being white? You wanted to kind of put it out there in a way that ordinary folks could relate to.

But so much of the alt-right is people who get attention by staging all kinds of wild and crazy, humorous and sometimes sort of threatening antics. And those are the people that would be the well-known ones to invite as speakers. So you invited a wide range of people as speakers. And that led to various unforeseen results, both, you know, I guess, good and bad, right?

Yeah, I invited a number of very controversial speakers who were popular in the alt-right at the time. I tried to have a more diverse coalition of people who are called alt-light or were called alt-light, who had more moderate beliefs. But those people didn't want to stand on the same stage as the other people. So it ended up just becoming more of the hardline white nationalist people than I had originally intended.

I'm probably more radical now than I was then. But it's an important thing for people to understand when they try to portray me as some like hardened neo-Nazi or whatever, is that I was pretty moderate at that time.

You didn't want them to chant about Jews, right? You didn't want anybody talking about Jews.

No, I told the people not to talk about Jews. I didn't want to talk about that at that time. That wasn't really the purpose of that protest. What I was trying to do was take the MAGA people who were concerned about immigration and so forth, which is essentially ethnic replacement, the illegal immigration issue, and the white nationalists who are unafraid to speak unapologetically about white issues, and bridge that gap and say, “let's meet in the middle and let's say it's OK to be white. It's OK to protect white heritage, European heritage,”these kinds of things.

And then other people wanted to make it about other things like Jewish power and so forth. But that wasn't my intention at the time.

And so that's one of the many reasons that it looks like things got a little out of control. But the biggest reason, of course, was that there was really obviously some kind of, quote unquote, conspiracy. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to notice that the FBI was liaising with the local police and that they just decided to let this violence happen, or even make it happen, in order to shut the rally down, which is totally illegal, unconstitutional, and frankly, completely insane.

But that happened for various reasons. Here is a lead up to that. This was back in May 2017. Earlier that year, you had the first alt-right torch demonstration. And this torch demonstration thing seems to have really freaked out certain powers that shouldn't be, because they relate this to like, “oh my God, the Nazis are marching with torches, chanting that the Jews will not replace us. It's the end of the world.”

And then Trump's in office and he actually likes these people. So this really freaked them out. But they shouldn't have been freaked out by a torchlight parade, right?

Yeah, they were more freaked out by the torch thing (on the evening of August 11th) than they were by the actual planned protest on August 12th. But we had done a torch protest in May, and it wasn't really that big a deal the way that it was portrayed to me by the people who came up with the idea. I didn't come up with the idea. The idea was that it was like a funeral procession for the fallen dead of European ancestry, our heroes and so forth. And in the book, I recount a number of examples of torchlight parades throughout both American and European history. The Vikings famously use torches during their funeral ceremonies. They use them during a march, and then they set a boat on fire, which they push out to sea with the fallen dead.

Ironically, since we were defending a Confederate general, the torchlight parades in America actually were originally associated with the Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln. So it's not like these are only used in anti-Semitic marches in Nazi Germany.

But these parades, these torches, have featured prominently in a lot of the efforts to try and stigmatize us and hit us with civil and criminal suits. And in fact, they're charging a lot of people for the August 11th march just for standing around with torches, peacefully protesting.

They claim that the torches are some kind of a weapon or something, or there was some law about about fire. What was the law they used?

Well, it's use of fire to intimidate, essentially. And one of the cases is going on right now as we speak. A guy named Jacob Dix, who, like I said, was a totally peaceful protester—I'm not aware of him doing or saying anything to anybody. He was just standing there. But they're bringing in a Jewish student who wasn't even at the protest, who was somewhere on the campus, that heard the people chanting, “you will not replace us” or “Jews will not replace us.” And she is now saying she was so afraid and she needs this guy locked up.

You cannot say “I'm afraid of your speech, lock him up.” That is so unconstitutional. But that's where we're at right now. And that's why I don't think it's hyperbolic to call Charlottesville the death of free speech in my book.

It's interesting that right now the left is getting a taste of its own medicine as they get the same arguments from the same ethnic group: Jewish people saying, “I don't feel comfortable walking across the university campus because there are these demonstrators who don't like the genocide over in Palestine.” So this left-right thing keeps kind of going back and forth, it seems. And there aren't enough people who are principled advocates of free speech for everybody.

But, you know, Jason, it occurred to me why they probably feel threatened by the torchlight parade. Actually, this didn't come to me until after I finished your book. And then suddenly I remembered the scene at the end of Frankenstein, which gave rise to the whole torches and pitchforks meme. That torches and pitchforks thing, on the one hand, we use it sort of positively to say, “we really need torches and pitchforks. We need to get these bums out of power.” And this is kind of a metaphor for the changing of the guard or revolutionary change which would be good.

On the other hand, there's a kind of a possibility of interpreting this as a Rene Girard style sacrifice event where they're basically going to lynch somebody, right? Like when they're going to lynch Frankenstein's monster, they're going to burn down the house or castle or wherever the Frankenstein's monster is holed up in the attic. And so that's like a lynching.

Rene Girard is the anthropologist who talked about how all human cultures are rooted in ritual sacrifice. And Jews are brought up to be hypersensitive about this because for various historical reasons, some Jewish communities have gotten scapegoated over the years. Some may have also been attacked for things they really did as well.

But the whole scapegoating thing, I think that's probably the reason that the torches bother people. What do you think?

Yeah, I think that – I mean the Frankenstein thing definitely occurred to me. I do think that that's a subconscious impulse, a feeling that people are having. But the best lies often have some root in truth, and I didn't know this at the time. I was totally ignorant about World War II. I never studied it, never had an interest in it until very recently.

But there were Nuremberg rallies where Nazis marched with torches. So they take something like that, although that is not the intention of everybody who was there. There probably were some people who were like national socialists in the group. Those were the people chanting Jews will not replace us. Not everybody was chanting that.

And then there were people like myself who've been told by the people who invented this practice for this specific protest, that it was to honor the dead of European ancestry kind of thing. So they take that and that some people had this conception and other people had a different conception. And then they try to paint everybody with a broad brush, just like the fact that there was a very small minority of people who got into fights with mostly Antifa who were around the statue of Thomas Jefferson that night at the UVA Rotunda. And they try and insinuate that everybody who was there was violent. It was a very small group of people. So there's this really nefarious guilt by association thing going on with the whole situation.

And we should add that some of the so-called Nazis are doing it kind of as a shtick, to borrow a Yiddish word. Andrew Anglin with his Daily Stormer is really, I think, more of a political entertainer and comedian than a real Nazi true believer. And it does seem that within the alt-right, there are a lot of people with a sense of humor. And the people who hate the alt-right seem to lack one. But it's a provocative kind of humor and obviously they can't handle it.

So you got into some really crazy situations where people were coming after you physically and violently getting in your face. I thought this was a pretty good picture from the book.

This was the night after the original torch march. And believe it or not, I actually went to the Lee Park. That's where this was taken because a black friend of mine was in the park live streaming and these white liberals were attacking him because they were saying he was friends with the racist Jason Kessler. I went over there to try and stand up for him and get the guy out of there. And they were all screaming over me. I wasn't trying to give a political speech. I was trying to say to my friend, hey, let's get the heck out of here. And they were yelling and putting middle fingers in my face and so forth. So I had to use the bull horn just to speak loud enough to communicate with my friend.

Crazy.

So here we come to the posters for the Unite the Right event. This is your official poster for it with the speakers. And then here's the unofficial poster from the Daily Stormer, which you didn't approve, apparently. And it seems like there was kind of an issue of like, you're the local guy in Charlottesville with the permit. All these other prima donnas are coming in planning to do their thing and not necessarily wanting to be on the same page with you. That must have been kind of frustrating.

Yeah, it definitely was. And obviously I had to move out of Charlottesville after this situation happened. It wasn't safe for me. But because I was a local person, I wasn't trying to just make a whole mess out of things. I was trying to communicate a serious message about the treatment of white people in America, about our history. And then there were these other people that weren't from there. And so they didn't care about me. They didn't care about the message I was trying to communicate. They wanted to come in with the most radical thing possible and overtake me and leave me there with this huge baggage in my lap in my hometown after they had all gone home.

I'm like very far from being a national socialist or anything like that. But the more I've learned about these issues, the less this “end Jewish influence in America” thing sounds crazy. I guess you've kind of followed that same path to a certain extent. On the other hand, when these (Daily Stormer) guys come and put this extremely provocative poster up, which you didn't ask them to do, in your hometown for your event, and they know it's going to really piss people off—the Antifa guys are going to look at this and they're going to want to pick up that sledgehammer and come and swing it at you—I can see why you didn't appreciate that too much.

And then here's the new Stormtroopers, the Rainbow Stormtroopers. What kind of world are we in here, with the storm troopers waving rainbow flags? It's very confusing.

Yeah. That's a classic picture, isn't it? Like they just couldn't help themselves. I mean, that symbolism is pretty strong. It is what it is. It's a totalitarianism wrapped in a rainbow flag. And obviously they didn't set this up as a photo event. It's just the two things that they were trying to accomplish, forcing this globo homo stuff down people's throats and using militarized police to do it.

Yeah, they're kind of doing the same thing now with Ukraine. Ukraine is supposedly the rainbow flag country standing up to evil Nazi Russia. And yet the stormtroopers are on the Ukrainian side. Aand the shutting down of free speech is happening on the Ukrainian side. The stuff that we associate with Hitler, regardless of what the historical reality was, the military aggression and so on, wanting to take over the world, that's all on the so-called Ukrainian side. So yeah, the rainbow storm trooper thing seems to be a thing these days.

And Antifa seems to really enjoy going out and and attacking people with all kinds of weird weapons and chemicals and bodily excretions. What's with those people?

Some of them are deranged violent people by nature. I think that even though they express this political ideology, there's something else going on there. They've identified that people who are labeled quote-unquote racist are people that you can mistreat in any way possible. So if you're a sociopath, if you get off in inflicting pain and harm on people, then these are the folks that you can do it to, and society gives you a pass on it.

You had some people who were involved in riots prior to Charlottesville, like the inauguration of Donald Trump riots in Washington, D.C. And they were asked—for instance, a guy named Tom Massey (not the US representative! -KB) was asked, “do you have any regrets about the violence that you caused today?” And he says, “my only regret is that I didn't get to punch any Nazis.” He was in Charlottesville to quote unquote “punch Nazis.” And he was given carte blanche, never charged with anything. And then a lot of these people attacked innocent people, not just the protesters, but even journalists who were there filming. They would attack the journalist in a mob, beat down, to prevent their antics from being filmed. These same Antifa who would go on to participate in the George Floyd riots. Once again, not being charged.

Yeah, it's a little odd how this punch-a-Nazi thing seems to be somehow socially tolerated. These people have this punch-a-Nazi slogan. It reminds me a little bit of a Jewish friend of mine. His family was a bunch of disgusting, hyper-materialistic Zionists, and his brother Daniel, I won't say my friend's name, but his brother Daniel moved to Israel to, quote-unquote, kill Arabs.

So, you know, if you're Jewish, you can punch a Nazi. That can be your slogan. “I'm going to go and look for people doing free speech activities I don't like. I'm going to punch a Nazi” and everybody approves. That's fine. Yeah, why not? Or if you can go to Israel to kill Arabs—and they're certainly doing plenty of that these days. And then the media reports that it's all the Palestinians and the white nationalist Nazis who are causing all the violence. It's a strange upside down world we live in.

Oh, here's Eric Striker. He just published a great article about Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind of the October 7th most successful military raid of the century, according to Scott Ritter. I'm very impressed with Eric Striker's writing. I don't know too much about his history. I looked a little bit, you know, the mainstream, of course, is slandering him. But anyway, there he is.

Yeah, he tried to do civil disobedience in the park. Basically, the public officials allowed the Antifa to attack the protest and then use that as an excuse to declare an unlawful assembly and evict the permitted protesters, who were being attacked, from the park. And some people left immediately, and some folks like Eric Striker, or Joseph Jordan, a.k.a. Eric Striker, tried to not leave the park and do civil disobedience, but the police just used their riot shields and pushed people out into the waiting arms of Antifa in the streets below where they were throwing rocks, hitting people with canes. There was a guy with an improvised flamethrower shooting flames at people coming down the stairs. It was a horrible situation.

There's the flamethrower guy.

Yeah, his name is Corey Long. And what they claimed that he was protecting that old man behind him.

Yeah, right.

So what really happened (on August 12 2017), which I figured out even before I read your book, is basically they got all you guys into the park where the Lee statue was, under false pretenses, and didn't even give you a safe way to get into the park. And then once you're in the park, the rally's supposed to start at noon. But then they force everybody to get into the park going through Antifa.

So Antifa attacks you guys. And once people are in the park, this violence has started. Now they have their excuse to shut down the rally. And then they force you right back into Antifa. And if you don't go, they're going to push you into Antifa.

So it's the diametric opposite of what the mainstream media was telling people, which was, of course, that the crazy, violent Nazis went to Charlottesville to beat up all these poor, innocent people of color and protesters.

But no, the police actually, under whatever orders—and they were liaising with the FBI ahead of time—it looks like they actually planned this. This was a deliberately staged riot. And it's kind of mind boggling, isn't it?

Yeah, absolutely. And I think that the book proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that that is, in fact, the correct interpretation of what happened. I include in the footnotes links to documents of notes, for instance, of meetings with the city manager where I expressed concern that the police were going to stand down, that people were going to be attacked in the streets on the way to a venue, causing a riot. I have recordings from my conversations with police officers, and they indisputably prove that I was promised safety measures for this rally that did not materialize.

They told me that I was going to have eight squadrons of police officers to separate the sides and keep the peace, that officers were going to be embedded throughout the crowd. And you can even see in this picture you've got here. On the upper right-hand side, this guy with the fat gut in the upper right corner has a police badge attached to his belt. So maybe he's embedded in the crowd, but he's not making arrests. He's just watching this protester get beat in the head with a cane and not doing anything.

The police chief was witnessed by multiple other police officers saying, “let them fight. It will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.”

They pulled the rug out from under us. They lied about what happened. They destroyed their text messages and other communications that were going on during the rally. And the media just totally covered up for them and just blamed it on the permitted protesters. Everything became about our offensive speech, how we're all Nazis and racist and were so violent. They meticulously covered up that the violence was started by the other side, that we had a permit to protest, that the police had promised us these safety measures that we went into this thing thinking were going to be implemented and weren't.

And that the power structure of the Charlottesville government including the city manager and police chief literally destroyed their communications, possibly in violation of criminal statutes, and no one did anything to hold them accountable.

It seems like this was kind of a spin on the old police tactic of having provocateurs in the crowd so when you have a demonstration that you don't like and you want an excuse to shut down the demonstration you have the provocateurs do something violent. And then the police just wade in and beat people up and drag them off to jail. Well, here they had a slightly different situation set up with these Antifa thugs. And by setting the thugs on the protesters, they were able to shut down the protest, and then also demonize the protest in the eyes of the world by having a totally one-sided false media narrative created about it. Quite amazing.

And that actually set the stage for January 6th, where something similar happened as well, didn't it? Although in that case, everybody was ready for Antifa, kind of expecting maybe Antifa was going to attack them, which didn't really happen, didn't materialize. Instead, it was a more standard provocateur technique of luring people into the Capitol, inciting people into the Capitol, and then declaring that this was “the ultimate insurrection, the most terrible thing ever in American history. And we have to round up thousands of people.”

Yeah, I think that there are a lot of similarities. And it's unfortunate that the Republican Party didn't do more to try and defend the protesters who were at Charlottesville, many of whom, as you can see from that MAGA hat that the guy has, were Donald Trump supporters. Even David Duke was interviewed during the protest and they said, why are you here? He said, we're here to fulfill the promise of Donald Trump. And many people felt like that, that Donald Trump was, if not explicitly pro-white, he was standing up for the silent majority of white people and that we were going to make that message a little bit more explicit.

So what Charlottesville turned out to be was something that wasn't just used to trap some of his most fervent supporters. It was also used as a cudgel to attack Trump himself. And they tried to insinuate, “these racists are emboldened by Trump's rhetoric” and all this other stuff.

The whole problem was their fault that they intentionally allowed it to get out of control and then blamed it on their political enemy, which of course they had the power to do since they controlled the media. And it was a similar situation at January 7th where people were – I think Trump requested Nancy Pelosi bring in the National Guard to keep the peace, and she refused to do it.

In Charlottesville, the National Guard was literally right next to the park, just standing there. No one was giving them the order because they wanted it to turn out that way. And with January 6th, they're rounding up all these Trump supporters, charging them with felonies so that they can't vote anymore, trying to insinuate that Trump's saying—something that is so basic in its free speech protections, like “we're going to fight for what we believe in.” And so they want to mischaracterize that. “Oh, he said he told them to fight.” That has never been interpreted that way before. But courts in Washington, D.C. are saying it's not free speech protected to say we're going to fight for what we believe in.

Also Trump got in big trouble in the media for what he said about the Charlottesville event when he said, quote, “there were some very fine people on both sides.” And I think he said something about how the Antifa people were doing more of the violence. What he said after the event was actually pretty accurate in a sort of a loose way. And then he was basically lynched for saying that.

Absolutely. And he was picking up on a lot of our major themes duiring the rally, too. Like we were saying that this attack on this Robert E. Lee monument is not just an attack on Robert E. Lee. That's why we also marched to the Thomas Jefferson statue at UVA, because we knew that they were boiling the pot slowly to kill the frog and they were going to go after all white people everywhere. And Trump in that press conference said, well, what's next? Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, they were slave owners too. He understood that.

Don't give ‘em any ideas, Trump.

Then they ended up doing that in the Floyd riots. They didn't just go after the American presidents who were slaveholders. They took it to the next logical step after that and were attacking even white abolitionists an anybody who was white: writers like Thomas Carlyle, nothing was safe if it had white skin.

Yeah. And in Madison, Wisconsin, where I was living until I moved to Morocco last summer, they tore down a statue of some hero of the northern side. He was like a big abolitionist and civil war hero. And there was a big statue of him by the local football field. And these crazy iconoclasts, the American ISIS, went and tore down that statue, even though it was a hero of their side. So, you know, go figure.

They were talking about taking down a statue of William Penn, who is the namesake of Pennsylvania. He was a Quaker. He was a pacifist. He worked with the Native Americans, traded with them peacefully, all this stuff. But they were saying, “we need to tear him down and create a new park with Native American monuments.” So it doesn't matter what these people actually stood for. That whole MLK thing has turned out to be a lie about “it's not about the color of your skin, but the content of your character.” They are going after us for the color of our skin.

Yeah, it does seem that way, for sure. What do you make of the fact, Jason, that this left-wing young generation that has been doing these kind of crazy things, getting on board with Black Lives Matter—I'm not against the concept of Black Lives Matter myself, I was brutalized by police once, and I know Black people who don't appreciate the fact that they have to worry about being pulled over and stuff by jittery cops and things like that. I'm actually sympathetic to that. Although I don't think that problem is as bad as it used to be. Everybody's aware of it now. But long before BLM, before everybody had cameras, the cops were a lot worse. Not all of them, but the bad cops were free to do whatever they wanted and they did a lot of bad stuff. And it's actually got a little better because of the cameras.

And suddenly there's this huge BLM movement. OK, I basically agree with the thrust of the movement up to a certain point. There's a lot more to be said, of course, than just “stop police brutality” or what have you. But this BLM movement became a children's crusade in the bad sense of massive fanatical violence that's totally counterproductive in so many ways, including to their own cause.

So I basically agree with you that that that young left wing generation went crazy in a lot of ways, or some of them did. But now the young left-wing generation is getting Palestine right. And then they're being beaten on the head by essentially the same forces that beat you guys on the head. So do you think they're going to wake up?

I hope so. And I've been mostly pretty proud of the people in my community, which is the white identitarian, white nationalist community. For the most part, they've stuck by their principles and they haven't just attacked the left-wing protesters just because they have attacked us in the past. When they're right on an issue as they are on Palestine, people have generally defended them. And so I think that that helps us to have the moral high ground, having that consistency. I don't really have a whole lot of hope that these people will learn from their mistakes. In fact, a lot of the anti-Israel, pro-Palestine movement in the United States is also run by Jews. It's run by left-wing Jews. And I live in the Washington, D.C. area. So I've actually been out and about and randomly come across like one of these sunrise protests, as they call themselves, where they were protesting outside this meeting of these Biden administration officials. And I,

I talked to two of the individuals, one of whom was—I thought he was white, but he's apparently Jewish. And then a black guy. And I started to talk to him about Jewish power and about how Jewish campaign donations account for such a disproportionate amount of the money in American politics. And they just totally denied it. And the guy said, “I'm Jewish. How can you say that? This isn't about race.”

So in a way, it's like, you know, the Jews are controlling both sides of this issue. So some of them might be more correct on the issue of Palestine. And I applaud them. But I don't think that they're able to look at the broader implications of what it means to protest Jewish power and how you're treated under those circumstances.

Yeah, I largely agree. Back even before I got thrown into the political spotlight through 9/11 truth activism and went through something a little bit like what you went through, only not nearly as bad—I can't believe the crap that you've been subjected to—before that, even, I had gotten involved with the local pro-Palestine group at the University of Wisconsin. And there was a sort of a constant hostile takeover going on from local left-wing Jews. And the first thing they wanted to do was make sure that the Palestinians never figured out that the way to win is to wake up the majority of Americans to the fact that their country has taken over by Jewish Zionists.

You're just not allowed to say that. But why not? Well, because that's the one thing that actually would help the Palestinians. And as you can imagine, the Jewish pro-Palestine people were not at all happy when I pointed that sort of thing out. And they became even less happy when I started talking about 9/11.

And so I've been following the same kind of general learning curve as you have on those matters. Well, I think we've pretty well finished the hour. And all I can say is that your book is an excellent read and an important historical document. So let's go back here to the slide showing the title page and people can go to buy it, I suppose. Probably not on Amazon.

Actually it is on Amazon, if you prefer to buy it there, but it's a little bit more expensive because they have all these fees and stuff. The web address to get it is www.dissident.press.

You can buy a paperback hardcover, you can get signed or unsigned versions. You can also get the latest updates on our social media.I'm on Twitter at The Mad Dimension. Dissident Press is at Dissident Press on Twitter.

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

Press TV Rumble link

Hello and welcome to Press TV Spotlight. I'm Marcia Hashemi. Thanks so much for being with us. The leader of Iran's Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said that due to Al-Aqsa flood operation, the issue of Palestine is the primary issue in the world today. He was speaking at a gathering commemorating the 35th anniversary of the passing away of the founder of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini. Ayatollah Khamenei also reflected on Imam Khomeini's steadfast support for Palestine and how his insight not only helped us understand the situation of Palestine, but Iran, the region, and the world.

I'd like to welcome out of London Shabir Razvi, political analyst. Thank you so much, Shabir, for being with us. Let's start off with the world today and the world years ago, and especially what has changed. One, looking at the place of Iran, and two, looking at the Palestinian issue.

Shabir Razvi: Thank you very much for the kind invitation. Of course, the world is a different place, as you quite rightly pointed out. And those of us who are of a certain age have lived through this historic moment from the time of the inception of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 and through all the contours that it has taken in the last years, particularly the sad demise of the founder and the leader of the Islamic Revolution. Imam Khomeini, may the Almighty be pleased with him and have mercy on him, was really an individual that resonated very clearly with not only the Muslims globally, but with all the oppressed people of the world.

Because in reality, Imam Khomeini was a religious scholar and his sort of thinking really sort of came out from the Holy Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and his family. So the reality is that whatever issues that Imam Khomeini wanted to deal with were in light of what Islam has taught humanity. The two key principles from the Quranic point of view are—I'll use the Arabic word and translate it for your esteemed audience—is to be really fighting against the mustakbireen (arrogant powers) and to be with the oppressed people, the mustazafeen.

So this is the sort of divine message that Imam Khomeini was able to present to the world. Hence the reason why as soon as the Islamic revolution came on the horizon, it discontinued the relationship with the apartheid regime in South Africa, and gave the Zionist embassy in Tehran to the Palestinians, and of course took the cause of the Palestinians to the forefront—the pivot, the foundation of really supporting the oppressed people in that manner.

I was lucky and very privileged to have participated in the funeral of Imam Khomeini years ago. And at that time, it was June, very hot weather, and people walked from many cities close by to Tehran to participate. It was the largest funeral that was ever held (10 million people, one-sixth of Iran’s population.) And I don't think any other funeral has come close to it in the last years or prior to it.

So that really showed the love that the Iranian nation had for the founder of the Islamic Revolution. Years later, what we see is that Iran is no longer a weak country. Iran has developed in all walks of life, from military activities to technology, science, manpower building. Iran has been successful in so many fields, considering that it has been under sanctions for the last years, sanctions which have created huge problems for the ordinary people. But nonetheless, it is educating the people. It has sort of become a power in West Asia without any doubt at all. Even the foes of the Islamic revolution really have to acknowledge the fact that Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran, is not a nation that can be walked over.

And it's alliances which have built in the last years. One recalls that Iran had to experience the eight year imposed war by Saddam in the beginning of the revolution. Obviously, the European nations, America and its allies, wanted to destroy the infant Islamic revolution at that time, but they did not succeed.

Kevin Barrett, expert in West Asian affairs out of Morocco. Kevin, thanks for being with us. Your thoughts on the leader of the revolution’s comments that due to the Al-Aqsa Storm operation, that Palestine has become the primary issue in the world. How important is this?

He's absolutely right.He nailed it. He was correct in observing that prior to October 7th, the Zionists had been making serious inroads among some of the more corrupt leadership entities in the region and had managed to sideline the Palestinian issue from the consciousness of much of the world. Events were moving in a direction that without any major change could have led to a growing tacit acceptance of this genocide of Palestine that's been ongoing since 1948.

And October 7th changed everything. It showed that just like Hezbollah was able to defeat the Israeli military in 2006, that the combined Palestinian resistance led by Hamas was able to inflict a tremendous strategic defeat on the Israeli military. On October 7 they won straight-up battles with some of Israel's best military units. Scott Ritter wrote a very good article about this, terming October 7 the greatest military victory of the century.

And that both showed that the Zionists are a paper tiger militarily, and also, it triggered this insane overreaction. I'm not sure that even the Palestinian resistance, which knows how cruel and vicious and sadistic and evil the Zionists are, could have imagined that they would overreact to this extent. But they have, and they have revealed themselves as the butchers of the world, the enemies of all mankind.

And that's been increasingly obvious to the point that the Western media's attempt to cover up this reality has completely failed. And now everybody all over the world who's paying attention has seen that the mask has come off and the evil serial killer underneath it has been revealed to the world. That's the true identity of the Zionist entity, and it always will be.

This kind of traumatic event leaves a permanent mark on people and on cultures, and the culture of this region will no longer accept the existence of this genocidal Zionist entity based on what's happened since the smashing resistance victory on October 7th. So they basically sealed their death warrant with that response, and the lLeader is totally right that this has changed history, and it's leading inexorably to the end of the genocidal Zionist entity and the liberation of Palestine.

Well, Shabir, Kevin made some interesting points. Let's start off with what he said about perhaps even Hamas didn't know just how this entity would react, how vicious—of course, they had experienced the viciousness of the regime for a long time—but that it would be so persistent and consistent with this genocide that eight months later that we're still witnessing the killing of civilians in Gaza. Why do you think that the regime made this decision at this time to go all the way and ignore everyone? Of course, international law they always had violated, but to kill and live streaming and not to care. At the end of the day, as Kevin said, haven't they basically signed their own death warrant here?

Well, indeed they have. And it's very clear that post 7th of October, the viciousness, the brutality, the barbarism of the genocide that is being played out in front of us, as all commentators have said that this is the first time in human history that we are able to see what's happening now, in real time, rather than read about it. So really, the death warrant, I think, has been sort of written quite clearly.

However, the Zionist entity always wanted to get rid of the Palestinians. The first Nakba, when Palestinians were made refugees. Most of the people living in Gaza are the children and grandchildren of those refugees. So this has always been the strategy. And we've seen over the last years, since the Zionist entity has existed, it has been vicious, as I said. The only thing is it is being documented in high definition, multicolor for everyone to see. And that's the reason they're not able to hide it like they were able to do it in past.

What I think is important to note here is that one talks about “the day after” concerning Gaza. One should really be talking about the day after (Zionism)—what happens to the Zionist entity when this war comes to an end. There would have to be a day of reckoning. And I think it's becoming very clear to any unbiased observer that the lifespan, the shelf life of the Zionist entity is really coming to an end. It's become a stale product, so to speak. Not only is it toxic, but it is stale as well. Therefore, no one really wants to experience anything that is stale. Therefore, what will happen thereafter is that I believe what really requires is…Netanyahu talks about de-radicalization, de-Hamas, in Gaza. I think what we should be talking about is de-radicalization of the Zionist entity, dismantling of the Zionist state, and one person, one vote for the Palestinian people who are living between the river and the sea.

Well, Kevin, Ayatollah Khamenei has reiterated how Palestine has been a priority for the Islamic Republic since the revolution and continues to be. How significant is it that what Iran was trying to make the world aware of back in 1979 has now happened, that the existence of the Zionist entity was a danger for Palestinians, for the region, and actually for the world?

Well, yes, Iran has taken the realistic view of Zionism from the very beginning. And that's mainly because of the courage of the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its genuine independence. So it's able to call it the way it sees it and to stand up for what it sees as right, whereas many of the other regional countries are led by people who are vulnerable, one way or another, to the power of Zionism and the U.S. empire, which Zionism largely controls.

The realistic view of Zionism has always been that this is a maniacal, messianic, millenarian, heretical religious movement which aims to perpetually expand and ultimately fulfill the prophecies of the most extreme and heretical and even satanic branches of Jewish messianic millenarianism, the kinds of things associated with people like Shabtai Zvi and Jacob Frank. And Jewish messianic millenarianism is very clear that what they are attempting is that they think that their messiah—or themselves, if they choose to play the role of their own messiah—is going to basically subjugate the whole world, take over the world, kill and enslave the goyim, that is, the non-Jewish tribes.

Obviously, not all Jewish people think that way. In fact, only a very small minority consciously dedicate themselves to this goal. But that minority is in power now. The Netanyahu family is part of that group, by the way. Netanyahu's father, Benzion, wrote a whole book about this (insinuating that) the Zionists need to become their own satanic messiah and take over the world through taking over the Holy Land.

So that's the project. And they're going to keep expanding. They're not going to stop with historic Palestine. They're trying to occupy their neighbors. They're ultimately going for greater Israel, everything between the Nile and the Euphrates and beyond. And they're trying to subjugate the whole world through that greater Israel.

And this realistic view of what we're dealing with here. It isn't just some European national movement that wants a very modest little state for million Jews in the region. No, this is a grotesquely expansionist cancer, not only on the region, but on the world. And everybody in the region really knows this, but only the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its allies have had the independence and courage to be able to stand up and say it openly.

Shabir, according to Ayatollah Khamenei, the al-Aqsa operation carried out by Hamas happened right on time and destroyed the enemy's plans for the region. Your thoughts about that?

Well, prior to that, there was normalization taking place. It has already occurred with certain entities in West Asia. It was in the cards that the regime in Riyadh was on its way to normalize its relationship with the Zionist entity. Plus other major players or major countries like Pakistan were also being pushed to do so in due course. So that plan has really come unstuck at the moment. No one is really going to think about any kind of normalization while this genocidal war continues in Palestine. And whoever is touting for that particular approach is not going to have any space. But let's wait and see how certain regimes under the control of the U.S. and the Zionist entity post ceasefire, how will they react?

I think the streets in the Arab nations will not allow their leaders to go on the path of normalization. The first entity which could really experience a change of regime is the regime in Amman. The King of Jordan is in a precarious situation in that it has had a normalized relationship with the Zionist entity and also Egypt for many years. More than half of the Jordanians are of Palestinian background. So that particular regime could change at any time if the Zionist entity continues in the manner that it is.

So there are issues associated with most of the Arab nations who want to normalize relationships with Israel. Their publics will not accept it quietly, and it could be a precarious situation for the leadership in those countries. So I think Israel, the Zionist entity, has lost a lot of friends, which it was expecting to have in the past. The nature of Al-Aqsa flood, which has really focused the minds of the global population from South Africa to Southeast Asia to South America, where South American nations have cut off diplomatic relationships with the Zionist entity, will continue and progress even more rapidly.

Kevin, since October 7 the world has been awakened from the slumber of believing that the Zionist regime was a democratic and fair entity, which, of course, were the lies that they had propagated to for decades. Now, we've seen recently the leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei, sent a letter to the university students in the United States and elsewhere telling them “we're on the same side. You're part of the resistance. You're standing up against oppression.” How important is this transition that we're seeing and this awakening, especially of the young people?

I think it's quite amazing. When I first saw the poll numbers back after October 7th showing that in the immediate wake of October 7th, when the propaganda was at its peak and these ridiculous lies about broiled babies and beheaded babies and this sort of nonsense were being bandied about by the president of the United States and the entire Western mainstream media—even at that pointthe polls showed that the majority of young Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 basically sided with the Palestinian resistance and wanted to put the genocidal entity of Israel out of business.

I was shocked by that poll. I'd known that there was a lot of sympathy for Palestine among younger people, but I hadn't realized that they were that wide awake.

And since then, public opinion has moved further and further in a pro-Palestine direction, especially among young people, but also among all different age and demographic groups in the West, and of course all over the world, starting with the Muslim world and the global South. And all of these people can see the grotesque injustice of what's going on in occupied Palestine, this over-the-top genocide with just really brutal and deliberate massacring of innocent people, of the aid workers who are trying to feed them, of the medical people who are trying to take care of them, this inflicting unspeakable tortures on little children and deliberately targeting women, killing the population in such a way that it's clear that there's no selectivity whatsoever.

They're not going after military targets. They're just exterminating the population in the most horrific way imaginable. And the whole world can see that now. And those young people are in particular waking up.

I think the leader of Iran was very wise in choosing this moment to send another letter to the young people of the West in solidarity with the demonstrations on campuses, because there is a common thread there. I'm sure that the Iranian religious scholars and the 18-year-olds on Western university campuses definitely have very different worldviews. These people are young, and they've grown up in a culture that's quite advanced in a lot of ways in terms of decadence and decay. But these young people are human and they have hearts and they have curious, inquiring minds. And so the Supreme Leader of Iran is reaching out to their better natures and their moral sense, their innate moral sense, and saying, look, this is what we're trying to do here in the leadership in Iran. We're trying to pursue a policy that puts morality first and put sympathy with suffering underdogs and oppressed people first. And that's a message that I think those students can relate to.

And Shabir, when we look at what happened on April 13th, Operation True Promise, the retaliatory attack by Iran on the Israeli regime, how indicative is this of how Iran has advanced over the years and over the decades and still definitely is a staunch defender of the Palestinian cause?

That particular attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran really put it on the map that it was not going to listen or really take any nonsense from the Zionist entity after the Zionist entity had attacked and killed Iranian military personnel and others who were at the Iranian embassy in Damascus, a sovereign property in a sovereign country.

So that really put a marker to show that from here onwards, Iran is going to take the war to the Zionist territories directly. Because in the past, over the last years, the Zionist entity had killed many individuals, scientists, the martyr General Soleimani, and other important individuals. But Iran did not get involved directly.

So April 13 really clearly showed that Iran is in a situation where it will not tolerate any kind of nonsense from the Zionist entity. That comes back to our original question: 35 years later, where is Iran? Iran is really on the world map as a military power. Certainly in West Asia, it is the number one military power without any doubt. No one in the region has the audacity to challenge Iran militarily.

Okay. I'm so sorry to interrupt you, Shabir, but we're really out of time. Thank you both. Kevin Barrett, expert in West Asian affairs, and Shabir Rezvi, political analyst. Thank you both for being with us. And thank you, viewers, for staying with us on another Spotlight. I'm Marzia Hashimi. See you next time.

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

In the wake of Trump’s historic conviction, this week’s False Flag Weekly News raised the question: Could an alternative candidate actually become president? As someone who has voted for a long list of alternative candidates, including RFK Jr. in 2020, I really ought to be more excited about this year’s race. RFK Jr., my 2020 choice, is the first non-duopoly candidate since Ross Perot to poll in double digits. And then there’s Trump, whose absurd, rigged conviction on 34 felony counts adds to his credentials as someone the Establishment loves to hate.

But which Establishment? Trump’s first term was run by neocons who make Joe Biden look like Mother Theresa. Today, the Zionist billionaires who are bribing universities, police, and thugs to crush campus anti-genocide protests are following Netanyahu’s marching orders and going all out to re-install Trump.

If I were a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I might imagine that the real Establishment is using reverse psychology on the unruly electorate. The banksters need a blustery macho Republican president who can incite the US military to fight World War III, and Trump is the only game in town. So they stage blatantly unfair persecutions of Trump to whip up sympathy for Orange Caesar not just among his base, but also with the independent and minority voters Trump needs to win.

Who is this Establishment, you ask? Fadi Lama calls them “the money power.” Mees Baaijen calls them “Glafia” (globalist mafia). Mujahid Kamran calls them “the international bankers.” James Perloff largely agrees with all three, and like Kamran uses the catchphrase New World Order.

My False Flag Weekly News co-hosts sometimes violate the Dave Chappelle rule: “Two words in English language you should never say – ‘The’ and ‘Jews’.” But I don’t think the Money Power a.k.a. Glafia a.k.a. international bankers a.k.a. New World Order is an exclusively Jewish thing. It’s just a disproportionately Jewish thing.

Some of the bankers aren’t Jewish. Those who are vary in their degree of devotion to Jewish tribal matters in general and Israel in particular. And of course the majority of Jews are only tangentially involved, if at all, with the usury-driven world takeover project. So as Dave Chappelle might say: “Three words in the English language you should always say — ‘not,’ ‘all,’ and ‘Jews.’”

Still, it’s pretty obvious who’s really in charge. Cat McGuire explains on this week’s False Flag Weekly News:

Kevin Barrett: (Elon Musk tweeted) that if Trump gets arrested, he'll be reelected in a landslide victory. And David Icke says: That's the idea.

So, Cat, maybe it's not that they want to have a Biden dictatorship with Trump in jail and no more elections while they wage World War Three. Maybe they want to put Trump in office to wage World War Three. Because frankly, Cat, I don't think Biden can mobilize the kind of guys who like to go off to fight wars. He might be able to mobilize a few rainbow flag waving people of indeterminate gender, but I don't know if those people are going to win any wars for him. Whereas if Trump is in office and he's banging the war drum, he might actually get some people with a couple of grams of testosterone left in their bloodstreams to go marching after him.

Cat McGuire: Right. That's a very good point. Because ultimately Trump’s for the genocide. Because he's completely controlled by our ZOG rulers. And he's not going to be doing that much different himself if he were to get in. He’s just like we saw with (Woodrow) Wilson and FDR. They ran on a peace ticket. And then once they got in, their Jewish controllers forced them to go to war.

I think Trump would go to war, even though he claims not to want it. So, yeah, it could be a backhanded way…because I think they installed him just to create more Trump derangement syndrome which has made our country more divisive. So put him back in and he'll do their bidding all the while keeping our country more divided, because it's then Trump derangement syndrome on even more steroids.

Kevin Barrett: When Trump was in office, that was the war party. He put in Pompeo, Bolton, Nikki Haley. All of those people are the hardcore Team B neocon war party people. And they launched the COVID bioattack on China. They nearly started World War III by assassinating General Soleimani. And I have no doubt that if Trump won in 2024 and appointed the same type of people, that would be a World War Three cabinet for sure. It would make Biden look like a peacenik.

RFK Jr.: No Alternative to Genocide

If Trump might actually be the Ziocon war party’s preferred candidate, what about RFK Jr.? I wrote him in for president in 2020 as a protest vote. Why? Because he’s intelligent, articulate, right on many issues, and a living rebuke to the forces that killed his father and uncle…or so I thought at the time. But now, it seems that Hamlet has joined forces with Claudius. As I wrote in my new Crescent International article:

As of June, 2024, Israel’s gradual takeover of the USA has become obvious and undeniable—a proverbial “elephant in the living room.” In this election year, all three major presidential candidates compete for Israel’s favor, even as the whole world recoils from the Zionist genocide of Gaza. The Democratic incumbent, Joe Biden, supplies the butcher Netanyahu with all the weapons he needs to massacre tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children, uttering only occasional peeps of pro forma protest in a lame attempt to mollify his base. Biden’s Republican challenger, Donald Trump, openly supports the genocide and calls on Israel to “finish the job” (of massacring Palestinians). Most bizarrely of all, the independent challenger Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who offers a refreshing alternative to mainstream approaches on other issues, has staked out the most pro-genocide position of the three.

Kennedy’s position is puzzling for many reasons. As the “alternative” candidate, he might be expected to take an alternative position on Palestine, especially since it would markedly enhance his slim chances of becoming president. Young Americans oppose genocide and side with Palestine, as the ongoing campus protests demonstrate. If RFK Jr. harnessed that youthful energy by reversing course and announcing his support for Palestine, he would immediately gain tens or even hundreds of thousands of enthusiastic youthful volunteers who would start ringing doorbells and promoting his candidacy, just as anti-Vietnam-war students did for his father in 1968. Since polls show that most Democratic voters oppose Biden’s pro-Israel stance, and that American public opinion overall is following world public opinion in the direction of ever-stronger support for Palestine, RFK Jr. could conceivably win a plurality of votes, and the presidency, by leading that shift. Instead, he has chosen to doom his candidacy by echoing the ultra-genocidal ravings of his handler, Rabbi Schmuley Boteach.

Though Kennedy decries the corrupt forces that have taken over America, and denounces the coups d’état that killed his father (1968) and uncle (1963), he seemingly fails to recognize who was behind the takeover and the killings. Kennedy knows and openly states that his father was not killed by the hypnotized Palestinian patsy Sirhan Sirhan. He acknowledges Sirhan’s innocence and has worked to free him from prison. But the significance of the fact that the perpetrators chose a Palestinian to falsely take the blame apparently escapes him.

So the only actual alternatives in 2024 are Cornel West and Chase Oliver. And they’re both pro-LGBTQ.

If American democracy is functionally dead, we need to step outside of its conceptual framework to find a real alternative to the Zionist banksters and their money power. How about…the Axis of Resistance? Below is the new letter to American university students from the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Imam Khamenei's Letter to American University Students

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

I am writing this letter to the young people whose awakened conscience has moved them to defend the oppressed women and children of Gaza.

Dear university students in the United States of America, this message is an expression of our empathy and solidarity with you. As the page of history is turning, you are standing on the right side of it.

You have now formed a branch of the Resistance Front and have begun an honorable struggle in the face of your government's ruthless pressure—a government which openly supports the usurper and brutal Zionist regime.

The greater Resistance Front which shares the same understandings and feelings that you have today, has been engaged in the same struggle for many years in a place far from you. The goal of this struggle is to put an end to the blatant oppression that the brutal Zionist terrorist network has inflicted on the Palestinian nation for many years. After seizing their country, the Zionist regime has subjected them to the harshest of pressures and tortures.

The apartheid Zionist regime's genocide today is the continuation of extreme oppressive behavior which has been going on for decades. Palestine is an independent land with a long history. It is a nation comprised of Muslims, Christians, and Jews.   

After the World War, the capitalist Zionist network gradually imported several thousand terrorists into this land with the help of the British government. These terrorists attacked cities and villages, murdered tens of thousands of people and pushed out multitudes into neighboring countries. They seized their homes, businesses and farmlands, formed a government in the usurped land of Palestine and called it Israel.

After England's initial help, the United States became the greatest supporter of this usurper regime, ceaselessly providing it with political, economic and military support. In an act of unforgivable recklessness, the United States even opened the way and provided assistance for the regime's production of nuclear weapons.

The Zionist regime used an iron-fist policy against the defenseless people of Palestine from the very beginning and has, day by day, intensified its brutality, terror and repression in complete disregard of all moral, human and religious values.

The United States government and its allies refused to even frown upon this state terrorism and ongoing oppression. And today, some remarks by the US government regarding the horrific crimes taking place in Gaza are more hypocritical than real.

The Resistance Front emerged from this dark environment of despair, and the establishment of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran expanded and fortified it.

The global Zionist elite – who owns most US and European media corporations or influences them through funding and bribery – has labeled this courageous, humane resistance movement as "terrorism".

Can one call a people a terrorist nation for defending themselves on their own land against the crimes of the occupying Zionists? And is helping such a nation and strengthening it, an act of terrorism?

The oppressive leaders of global hegemony mercilessly distort even the most basic human concepts. They portray the ruthless, terrorist Israeli regime as acting in self-defense – yet they portray the Palestinian Resistance which defends its freedom, security and the right to self-determination, as terrorists!

I would like to assure you that today the circumstances are changing. A different fate awaits the important region of West Asia. The people's conscience has awakened on a global scale, and the truth is coming to light.

Moreover, the Resistance Front has grown in strength and will become even stronger.

And history is turning a page.

Besides you students from dozens of American universities, there have also been uprisings in other countries among academics and the general public.

The support and solidarity of your professors is a significant and consequential development. This can offer some measure of comfort in the face of your government's police brutality and the pressures it is exerting on you. I too am among those who empathize with you young people, and value your perseverance.

The Quran's lesson for us Muslims and all of humanity, is to stand up for that which is right: "So be steadfast as you have been commanded" (11:112).

The Quran's lesson for human relations is: "Do not oppress and do not be oppressed" (2:279).

The Resistance Front advances by a comprehensive understanding and the practice of these and hundreds of other such commands – and will attain victory with the permission of God.

My advice to you is to become familiar with the Quran.

Sayyid Ali Khamenei

May 25, 2024

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

Rumble link Bitchute link

Press TV: Joining us now for our program is John Steppling, author and commentator, joining us from Norway, and also Dr. Kevin Barrett, editor at Veterans Today, joining us out of Saidia, Morocco. Gentlemen, I'd like to welcome you both to the program.

I guess we'll start there in Morocco with Dr. Kevin Barrett. Now, Dr. Barrett, I want to read also something in addition to the story. I have a little article here. It says, in the U.S., over 2,950 protesters have been arrested, including faculty members and professors, on over 60 university campuses. On May 7th protests spread across Europe as well, with mass arrests in the Netherlands, and by the 12th of May, 20 encampments had been established in the United Kingdom and across universities in Australia and Canada. This article is going up to the 12th, about 18 or 19 days ago. And as you very well know there's the UCLA arrests that took place, the 80 here. So we're well over 3,200 arrests on sixty-plus campuses just in the United States alone. What kind of impact does this have in getting the message out, doctor?

Kevin Barrett: I think these students are doing the right thing strategically as well as morally, because they know that the reaction is going to be grotesquely exaggerated and actually non-strategic from the other side. What we're seeing is that these students are putting up their tents and they're putting up signs and they're behaving peacefully.

And the billionaire Zionist donors to the university are going crazy. They are reacting with great stress. They're neurotic. They freak out. They immediately start pulling out all the stops to pressure the universities to get rid of these encampments. Because these billionaire Zionists, I think deep down inside, they are ashamed of the genocide that they and their tribe are committing. And so they're psychologically conflicted. So they use their enormous power to basically force the universities to do what universities never do (shut down peaceful protests).

Thank you, Dr. Barrett. John Steppling, welcome to the conversation. John, just last week, the leader of Iran's Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, said these kids are all on the right side of history, and they are now an integral part of the resistance movement front. So obviously their message is getting out. Palestinians and the Palestinian resistance has also acknowledged them. Their movement, how far does it go in isolating the Israeli regime?

John Steppling: Well I think public opinion throughout the world is overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian. It's hard sometimes to remember that, because the media is controlled by Western governments and they have a firm grasp of the narrative that they want to impose on all of this. If you read the coverage of the Santa Cruz protests, the headlines are “Israel Hamas protests.” They had to get in the word Hamas, because that's a buzzword for, you know, the bogeyman, evil terrorists, etc.

But all of this I think, is failing because the protests are growing no matter the heavy-handed police response, as was true in 1968, and these protests echo those anti-war protests. The police crackdown is excessive and disproportionate and often very brutal. And in this case we're seeing professors beaten, and certainly many students have been.

So the message is, I think, been disseminated. People are horrified by this genocide across the world. The only place you don't see this horror is in Western governments and in many of the Arab governments. I mean, this has to constantly be reiterated. There's Sisi in Egypt, and King Abdullah in Jordan, and in the UAE Zayed bin Salman, King Mohammed in Morocco. I mean, these leaders function as... as Zionists, essentially.

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

Fadi Lama discusses his book Why the West Can’t Win: From Bretton Woods to a Multipolar World. Lama’s thesis is that the West, dominated by private central bankers a.k.a. “the Money Power,” has met its match in the form of the RIC (Russia-Iran-China) de facto alliance. Whereas the Money Power Empire uses slogans like liberalism and democracy to disguise its efforts to construct a one-world totalitarian plutocracy, the RIC axis supports multipolar civilizational sovereignty including the preservation of traditional collective values that bind together religions, nations, and families. According to Lama, world power trends favor RIC, which has been making rapid economic, technological, and military gains, even as the Money Power Empire loses control over energy resources.

Dr. Fadi Lama is an International Adviser for the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). He is a consultant in the fields of geoeconomics, industry, SMEs and academia. Fadi received his PhD in Mechanical Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology, an MSc in Manufacturing Technology from The City University of London, and his BE in Mechanical Engineering from the American University of Beirut.

___

Excerpts:

Kevin Barrett: And your book does make it clear how the change in the military technology that Andrei Martinov has written about is so relevant to the fact that today the BRICS countries or the RIC, the Russia-Iran-China axis that you write about, are able to now challenge the US economically (thanks to their military power). Because we're moving into a stage of military parity, and maybe beyond parity.

Fadi Lama: Tell me, what's the real balance of military power now? What parity? Economic parity or military parity?

Well, I was saying we're moving into the era of military parity. Where we are in that process, I don't know.

Military parity? That disappeared a long time ago. Now, there is no parity at all. The power of the RIC (Russia-Iran-China) is much greater. I will take a quote from—I think it was Larry Johnson, who stated that the US is waging war similar to having an army of cavalry in World War II.

Let me put across some important facts people are not aware of. As you have noticed in the book, everything has at least two references that corroborate it. So, regarding US Army ground forces, these were finished, obliterated, in Iraq. Most people are not aware that the U.S. Army had more casualties in Iraq than in the Vietnam War. They give you the number, this funny number of whatever it is. The actual number was, until the end of March, more than the Vietnam War.

What was done was like creative accounting. How do you define that in the theater?

Like in Vietnam, if you went to Vietnam and you died, you were considered to be a casualty of the war. In the war on Iraq and Afghanistan, they made the definition “dead in the theater” and “dead not in the theater.” What's the dead in the theater? I gave this example many times… And the missile comes in at me and I'm pulverized. There's nothing to pick up. All the other nine are dead. Somebody's head is falling off. Another is cut into three parts or whatever the ambulance comes and picks all these parts—the helicopter ambulance or whatever, all these that were picked up are not considered dead in the theater. They died while not deployed (but rather, supposedly during evacuation or hospitalization).

Another totally different angle that corroborates this is a conference that was held in the Kennedy School in Harvard about the cost ofthe Iraq and Afghanistan war. And there they cite that total number of rotated service men and women was something like 2.5 million. And those service men and women who had compensation claims due to injury were about 1.25 million, or half the total. Now calculate the deaths. One quarter…if you even, if you go to one tenth, that's 125,000.

So the the the army the ground forces were obliterated. Hence Obama came up with this innovative doctrine of “leading from behind.” (Hiring mercenaries and terrorists and client states and generally using proxies. -KB) So the ground forces are gone. What do you have left? The Navy. The Navy is used to project power.

After the January hit of Ain al-Assad base (Iran’s retaliation for the American assassination of General Soleimani) I show in the book the image analysis (of Iran’s bulls-eye missile strikes). And this meant that aircraft carriers were transformed from a platform for projecting power into a platform with hostages. The analysis is detailed in the book.

So if an empire cannot project power, it's no longer an empire.

In the 1990s they lost Venezuela, which was under their control. Russia's oil was with the oligarchs, under their control. Of the top four, only Iran was not in their control. Today, of the top four, only Saudi Arabia, number four, is mostly under their control.

As you point out, Saudi Arabia is becoming less willing to obey every order they get from the empire.

First they entered this proxy war against Yemen and they lost. And they found that these weapons systems and support they are getting from the US and the UK was useless. They lost against the Ansar Allah in Yemen, which goes again to prove that the whole Western military doctrine is obsolete.

Yeah, Yemen is certainly performing above expectations, isn't it?

Not really. If you follow reality, not really. But if you go by the propaganda, you know the hype. The US Navy has a budget of around $335 billion, the Navy. The estimated GDP of Yemen is $25 billion. Peanuts! And that’s Yemen’s GDP, not the Yemen Navy. Yemen’s Navy, I don't know, it could be billion. I have no idea.

And if you read the literature of the US Navy, “we maintain the sea lanes of communication.” What? They couldn't control the Red Sea, which has, I think, I don't know, 40% of the global traffic. Against who? AnsarUllah. Why? The Americans have, let's say, a very powerful bow and arrow. The other guy has a machine gun. The bow and arrow has become obsolete.

And their missile defense is—first, it's not effective. Two, it's very costly. Three, they don't have the production capacity for an intense missile defense. One French frigate, I think, they ran out of missile defense and they just left. “It's too dangerous for us here.”

And the US, UK navies cannot maintain the sea lane and sea traffic in the Red Sea versus who? Ansar Allah.

Hezbollah now… for example, the hubris that they are going to attack Lebanon. Okay. I'm in Lebanon. Now we laugh when we hear that they want to attack. Who's going to attack? Israel, the United States. We really laugh. You know, what do they have? The U.S. has an aircraft carrier. At the beginning of the Gaza War, they had this thing about an aircraft carrier coming to the Mediterranean Sea. Then it hid behind Cyprus so as not to be in the range of Hezbollah missiles.

Hezbollah now has a vastly larger missile arsenal than it had in when it essentially defeated Israel in 2006. And that leads to the question of why the Israelis keep saying that they're planning to attack Lebanon, but they keep putting it off.

When they say they are going to attack Lebanon, the first reaction is laughter, like I'm laughing now. This is the first reaction.

The second, I can assure you, is that the majority wish that they would attack Lebanon. Okay. Because this struggle, which started in the 19th century and which has totally destroyed the lives and the development of the whole region. You can go from Morocco to Pakistan, it all has been affected by the insistence of creating this settler colony in the Levant.

So, this is the big showdown. The resistance axis…because in Islam, there is no such thing called collateral damage. In the Quran, if you kill an innocent life, it is like you have killed all humanity. So this concept of collateral damage doesn't exist. And if you notice, in the war between Hezbollah and Israel, or even between the Palestinian resistance in Gaza and Israel now, Israel’s casualties are military, ten military to one civilian. But on the other side, whether it's the US or Israel or whatever Western country, they will inflict ten times times or a hundred times more civilian than military casualties.

So despite the fact that the resistance axis has the capability to remove and terminate this settler colony (it doesn’t for humanitarian reasons). And Alistair Crook has been explaining this for years. He calls it the red pill option. They will not embark on a major war because it will necessarily involve thousands of civilian casualties.

So they cannot start a war. You perhaps understand. Most people do not understand. Most people know Sayyid Hassan Nusrallah. All over the world they know. But they do not understand that this guy and all the overwhelming majority of the Hezbollah or Ansar Allah or Iranians or whatever, they consider that this very short life is an infinitesimal period during which they are sitting for an exam. And what really counts is Judgment Day. They are working for Judgment Day.

Put this in a Western mind. They cannot understand that this guy, his life is just a test for standing in front of God and Judgment Day and having a clean slate.

I think some Westerners can still vaguely relate to that in terms of both their own religious heritage that is mostly eroded away, but also in terms of the just kind of basic human intuition. I mean, before I came to Islam and before I even had any truck with the notion of God, I think I still had just a hint of that knowledge that in some sense, we are going to be judged for what we do in this life.

Yeah, of course. And now there is a revival of spirituality and Christian values in the West which is very good, but the fact is, when the Israeli or the American…When they try to analyze, the (resistance) guy states it very clearly, that judgment, but they cannot internalize it.

So this is really what keeps the big war from taking place. If Israel attacks, it’s real war. I mean real war. Now there are, if you want to call them, serious skirmishes, but it's not a real war like they're doing on Gaza. If they do a real war, then it may be considered that from a religious standpoint that Hezbollah can enter into a full war.

“If you want the big war, we will have the big war.”

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

Cat McGuire will discuss Kevin MacDonald’s article and related topics on tomorrow’s False Flag Weekly News

Evolutionary psychology scholar Kevin MacDonald discussers his new article “The Extreme Hyper-Ethnocentrism of Jews on Display in Israeli Attitudes Toward the Gaza War.” In it, he writes: “At least until the Gaza war, Jews have successfully depicted themselves as moral paragons and as champions of the downtrodden in the contemporary West…This Jewish pose of moral superiority is a dangerous delusion, and we must be realistic what the future holds as Whites continue to lose political power in all Western countries. When the gloves come off, there is no limit to what Jews in power may do if their present power throughout the West continues to increase. The ubiquitous multicultural propaganda of ethnic groups living in harmony throughout the West will quickly be transformed into a war of revenge for putative historical grievances that Jews harbor against the West, from the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans to the events of World War II. This same revenge was fatal to many millions of Russians and Ukrainians. It’s the fate of the Palestinians that we are seeing unfold before our eyes.”

Kevin MacDonald is a retired professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), best known for his controversial application of evolutionary psychology to characterize Jewish behavior as a “group evolutionary strategy.” He is the editor of the Occidental Observer.

Excerpt:

Kevin Barrett: So let's talk about your new article on “The Extreme Hyper-Ethnocentrism of Jews on Display in Israeli Attitudes Toward the Gaza War.” One striking thing about your article is the serious warning that the fate of Gaza could be the fate of other countries and of the West. A lot of people, of course, would think that's exaggerated. I'm not so sure. So maybe you can elaborate on that.

Kevin MacDonald: Well, every time Jews have had absolute power, as they did in the Soviet Union for years, they have exercised it brutally against their enemies. And I'm concerned that we'll see that again. And you see it if you look at the Old Testament, the injunctions and desires for genocide of these people who are their enemies. And all the Jewish religious writing saying basically that Gentiles are another species, they're below us, they're basically animals, and that sort of thing.

And then you see that rhetoric regarding the Palestinians. And you will see that regarding Europeans, because if and when we lose power—we haven't lost power yet, obviously—but I'm concerned about the future because clearly the Jewish establishment is desiring more and more immigration. So it'll be a non-European country. All the Western European countries, United States, Canada, Australia, they will all be minority white countries. At some point, white people may not have enough power, political power, to really resist what is going on. And I just fear that Jewish ethics is entirely self-centered. It's sort of the interest of the group, nothing more, and completely the opposite of Western ethics, which is universalist: categorical imperatives, basically do what anybody else could do in that situation, you'd be okay with it. So it's like that sort of Western universalism, which is unique in the world, really. Other cultures tend to be very ethnocentric, and they privilege their own group. But the West has this long liberal tradition, really stemming from the Enlightenment, but in a way going back earlier than that. And I trace it back to evolutionary roots in my book on Western individualism. There's this sense that we should be universalists. It's the moral thing to do, that we should basically take care of other people and see their point of view and all that.

Jewish ethics is completely foreign. You know, it's like, you don't care about what they think. And the more Orthodox you get (the more ethnocentric.) And the Orthodox have taken over Israel.

Today I got this email from Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the ADL, and he's been in Israel. He come back with this message and basically he says, “You know, what happened on October 7th was anti-Semitism.” And you always see this by the Jewish apologists, that there is no context to what happened on October 7th. There's nothing about the blockade that's been ongoing, nothing about all the oppressive policies that Israel's engaged in over the years. And what Israel's doing is absolutely destroying Gaza. It'll never really come back for years and years, if ever.

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

Is a university professor’s job to make students regurgitate his own views? Or is it, rather, to call attention to the most noteworthy extant interpretations, and encourage students to use critical thinking to come to their own conclusions?

My academic training favored the latter approach, perhaps because I was fortunate enough not to study under any egotistical academic superstars. (My dissertation advisor, the late Harold Scheub, was only a semi-superstar in the somewhat marginal field of African Languages and Literature.)

But plenty of people, inside and especially outside the academy, are terrified of teachers who encourage students to think for themselves. My long-time 9/11 truth colleague Prof. Anthony Hall, who spent years being hounded by the ADL over an incriminating image that someone planted on his Facebook page, knows that better than anyone.

Tony recently posted on the “Free Speech Crisis at our Universities.”

Left-wing censors want students indoctrinated with the “Canadian residential school holocaust” narrative (among other holocaust narratives). They want to silence skeptics, and fire professors who “platform” them.

Right-wing censors want students indoctrinated with pro-Israel narratives. They want to fire administrators and professors who have encouraged the on-campus critical thinking that produced the current wave of anti-genocide protests. These Zionist-financed ConInc inquisitors are pushing today’s version of Hannity and O’Reilly’s 2006 crusade against the 9/11 truth movement in general, and its academic wing in particular.

Should professors profess only approved ideas, and force students to regurgitate them verbatim? That might be a good educational philosophy at Bill O’Reilly University. Below is the still-amusing transcript of Bill O’Reilly’s unbelievably smarmy, moronic, arrogant hectoring of two of my “Islam: Religion and Culture” students on October 11, 2006.

Bill O’Reilly Interviews “Madman” Kevin Barrett’s Students

Bill O’Reilly: Impact segment tonight: You may remember University of Wisconsin instructor Kevin Barrett saying that the USA attacked itself on 9/11 and that America is behind the terrorism in Iraq. That caused a great outcry, but Barrett hasn't pulled back a bit.

Kevin Barrett audio clip: It's happening, you know, largely through this false flag terrorism. It looks to me like, not only 9/11, but also Madrid, the Bali hotel bombing, and probably most of these so-called Zarqawi-style bombings in Iraq are all false flag operations being carried out by a special wing of probably U.S. or Western military intelligence.

Bill O’Reilly: Now this is just insane. Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle said the university should fire Barrett, but of course it's not happening. University Provost Patrick Farrell has retained Barrett, but has warned him to stop seeking publicity. However, the story doesn't end there. Barrett is now requiring his students to buy his book, which compares President Bush to Adolf Hitler. Joining us now from Madison is Molly Sessler, a student in Barrett's “Islam: Religion and Culture” class, and Jenna Pryor, the managing editor at the conservative student newspaper at UW.I'll begin with you, Ms. Pryor. You know, there comes a point where academic standards have to be held, upheld, at any major university. And here, this man runs around saying all these things with no backup, no proof, nothing. He's considered a crank and a kook by most academics. And how's it going down on the University of Wisconsin campus?

Jenna Pryor: You know, you're absolutely right. And it's becoming more and more embarrassing. You know, a few years ago when I applied and was accepted to the UW, it was my number one choice because of the prestige it had not only in Wisconsin, but nationwide. And I just feel like day by day with Mr. Barrett, that prestige is slowly eroding. I mean, we have this guy saying these things, which are perfectly reasonable for his own personal opinions, but are not facts, are not peer-reviewed scientific evidence by any means, are just basically his opinions on Republicans and President Bush, and passing them off as testable knowledge in his class, forcing students to read it, forcing students to take tests on it, forcing students to repeat it. It's embarrassing. And you're absolutely right when it comes to academic standards. I mean, for other professors at the UW, it must be extremely embarrassing for them to have a peer of theirs—

Bill O’Reilly: Is it embarrassing, though? Is it embarrassing? Have other professors said anything about it?

Jenna Pryor: I think they are. I've seen some comments online from some other professors that are embarrassed by this.

Bill O’Reilly: I don't know if that's true. I haven't seen any outcry by the university officials, the hierarchy, or the professors at all. And Ms. Sessler, you're actually taking this course. Now, why would you take a course from a guy who basically is putting forth a preposterous scenario and making statements that he can't back up with facts? Why would you take the guy's course?

Molly Sessler: Well, to be fair, when we signed up for the course, we didn't know who was going to be teaching it or really anything about it other than the description of the course.

Bill O’Reilly: But you had a chance to drop it. You know, all courses, all kids can drop whatever course you want. I know the drill.

Molly Sessler: I didn't want to drop it. I wanted to learn about his opinions.

Bill O’Reilly: Why? They're backed up by nothing. They're backed up by nothing. I mean, why don't you just go take a course by the Rajneesh Baruch someplace? I mean, come on. Don't you want to learn from somebody who has facts backing up what he says?

Molly Sessler: He does have facts backing up his beliefs on Islam, and that is what the course is about. The course is about Islam, and he's taught us very well about that.

Bill O’Reilly: All right, now let me challenge you on that, Ms. Sessler. You are going to be required to read a book that he has an essay in, and this is what he says, quote: “Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the Nazis inaugurated their new era by destroying an architectural monument and blaming its destruction on their designated enemies,” unquote. Do you know what monument he's talking about, Ms. Sessler?

Molly Sessler: Couldn't tell you—

Bill O’Reilly: Okay it's the Reichstag fire that's what he's talking about and he is basically putting forth to you a person with no historical background because you couldn't answer my very—it's it's not an easy question by the way what I just asked you—but it's a question that if you knew history you would know. You can't answer that question, madam. And what I'm submitting to you is that you are a young woman, sincere, who's now ensnared in this class, and you don't have the background to know whether this man's lying to you or not. Am I wrong? The book that you're speaking of that he's requiring us to read, his article is in that book.

Molly Sessler: We are not required to read his article that you're quoting from. There are three other articles from that book that we are going to be reading. His is not one of them.

Bill O’Reilly: Okay, but what I'm trying to tell you is this guy could sell you a rainbow and you would buy it because you don't have the frame of reference to know what he's talking about.

Molly Sessler: Bill, I really don't—

Bill O’Reilly: It's not a matter of being gullible. It's a matter of knowing what you're talking about. This man is saying that -was... orchestrated by President Bush, just like Hitler orchestrated the Reichstag fire, so that Bush could take power. There is not one shred of evidence, Ms. Sessler, to back that insane assertion up. You are sitting there. Your parents, I guess, are paying tuition for you to sit there in front of a madman. He's a madman.

Molly Sessler: I don't think he’s a madman.

Bill O’Reilly: I know you don't, but you're not qualified, with all due respect, because you don't know the facts of history, to make the assessment.

Molly Sessler: I'm not just going to take whatever he says as fact. That's what this class is about. That's what all university courses are about, taking them and deciding what you think about what the professor says that's controversial.

Bill O’Reilly: Ms. Pryor, all university courses are about credibility in the classroom with an instructor who is an expert in his field. That is what you pay tuition to get. All right? That's why I went to Meyers College, to Boston University, and to Harvard, because the instructors there knew what they were talking about.

This man has problems, all right? He's got problems. But the bottom line is that Ms. Sessler and other students will be sitting there and listening to this guy, and the university is allowing it to happen. Ms. Pryor, can you explain why?

Jenna Pryor: Could I explain why? No. I really wish I could. I mean, if there was a field of offensive lies, he would be an expert in that field. But there's not. And he's passing himself off as an expert on not only Islamic history, which he may or may not be, but also an expert on buildings and engineering and things like that when it comes to how the Twin Towers fell. He's not an expert. What he's saying is not facts. And he's passing them all as facts to these students. And it's unfortunate. I am shocked that the University of Wisconsin is allowing this man to teach when the things he has said are so crazy, it's frightening.

Bill O’Reilly: And I'm sorry I was a little tough on you, Ms. Sessler. I didn't mean to be. But I had to ask those questions, and I had to show the audience, you know, what your frame of reference is. You read about the Reichstag fire, read about all this stuff, and you'll come to the same conclusion that I have. Ladies, thanks very much.

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